Showing posts with label ncaa tournament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ncaa tournament. Show all posts

Monday, April 27, 2015

5 comments John Calipari is Culpable for the Scam the NCAA Runs Simply By Choosing to Be a Head Coach

I've read a lot of John Calipari-hating columns through the years. Some I agree with and others I don't agree with as much. I'm not a huge Calipari fan, but I often find myself countering attacks against him from certain parts of the media who seem to think one-and-done was his idea. Today, a guy who writes for Deadspin and Slate (well, at least he writes for Slate for one day) states that John Calipari is culpable for the NCAA running a scam on players with the one-and-done rule because he chooses to be the head coach at the University of Kentucky. That's the gist of what he writes. If true, this means every Division-I head coach who recruits a player that leaves after one year is culpable for the NCAA scam of one-and-done. As I always state, one-and-done is not an NCAA rule, but it seems few people care about that sometimes. It always comes back to John Calipari as the bad guy because he dares to recruit one-and-done players. It is unfair for Calipari to be blamed for something the NCAA has chosen to do. The only way Calipari could not participate in the NCAA scam is if he would resign as the University of Kentucky's head basketball coach and go find something else to do with his life. I'm not sure why this ultimatum only pertains to Calipari, but it seems that it does. I've explained too much already, so I'll let you get confused by what point the author is trying to prove in blaming Calipari. The author admits that the one-and-done rule and other NCAA scams are not Calipari's fault, but fuck it, let's blame him anyway. Actually, the author's point is that if Calipari were really on the player's side then he would quit his job at Kentucky. Because that would fix everything.

Last week I wrote about the ways that both pro- and anti-NCAA camps tend to miss the mark when talking about University of Kentucky basketball coach John Calipari. He deserves less criticism for breaking NCAA rules and more for profiting from them, because even his “Players First” arrangement forces players to take huge risks for a reward artificially delayed by NCAA and NBA rules,

I am not going to wave a Calipari flag outside the courthouse steps or self-immolate in order to protect his honor. But let's be a little bit honest here. I like honesty. Almost every NCAA men's head basketball coach would like to be in the position that John Calipari is in. They can lie and claim differently, but the vast majority would take Karl-Anthony Towns on their team for one year. Most coaches wouldn't mind their program being a pit stop between high school and the NBA. Coaches like Bo Ryan can argue differently, but they are lying. Bo Ryan heavily recruited Kevin Looney, who is a one-and-done player. So getting that assumption out of the way, which I believe to be a correct assumption, most men's college basketball coaches wouldn't mind profiting from the NCAA rules. It is not John Calipari who forces Michael Kidd-Gilchrist to come to college for one year, it is the NBA who forces Kidd-Gilchrist to go overseas or play in college for one year. Sure, Calipari is profiting. He's not forcing these players to take these huge risks. They are free to sit out a year, go overseas (where there would still be risk for injury) or they can play college basketball for one year in the United States (where there would still be a risk for injury). Absent not playing basketball for a full year and then entering the NBA, the risk is always there. Calipari is not forcing these players to do anything because it's not his rule and he's simply recruiting these players like other men's basketball coaches are doing. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist is going to play basketball for a year after high school prior to entering the NBA, it's just a matter of where.

while he himself risks nothing at all and has a guaranteed seven-figure annual reward no matter what becomes of the players who do all the valuable work.

This is an absolute strawman argument. Every men's basketball coach risks nothing at all while coaching. Saint Coach K isn't risking his career coaching Jahlil Okafor. Steve Prohm isn't risking his life or career coaching at Murray State. The risk will always be on the players. I don't know why John Calipari and his "arrangement" is more dangerous than Tom Izzo's "arrangement" where he gets paid millions of dollars and the players do all the valuable work.

On Sunday, Slate writer A.J. McCarthy published a thoughtful response to my piece. In his estimation, “Calipari’s unmatched success in getting his players to the next level—while certainly not entirely ridding him of the NCAA’s stench—does, actually, separate him from his rival coaches. Not just in degree, but in kind as well.”

To argue that Calipari’s arrangement with players is meaningfully different—in kind, not degree—from the one offered by other college coaches because of the high rate at which his players catch on in the NBA, strikes me as flawed in at least a couple of ways.

It can be a flawed argument, but it's an argument that is as flawed as arguing John Calipari is the most evil of evil head coaches because he profits from the one-and-done rule and forces his players to take huge risks prior to entering the NBA. The risks Kentucky players take are no more than the risks any college basketball player takes in wanting to make it to the NBA one day. Doug McDermott was coached by his father and his father didn't take a risk, it was Doug who did all the valuable work during his time at Creighton and took on the risk of injury.

First, and most importantly, it ignores the risk forcibly taken on even by those of Calipari’s players who emerge from his program with their NBA prospects unharmed, or even enhanced. Anthony Davis may have survived his lone season at Kentucky without, say, tearing his Achilles tendon, but he still carried the enormous risk of doing so throughout that entire season—

Every single college athlete in every single college sport suffers risk of injury during their playing career. Some of these athletes plan on making their living in sports, others don't. The risk of injury doesn't go away simply because Nigel Hayes is planning on spending four years in college rather than one year in college. If Anthony Davis tore his Achilles tendon, he has the option of going back to school for a second year. This risk of a player's stock being down or an injury occurring isn't present because John Calipari has put a gun to Anthony Davis' head forcing him to play, but because Anthony Davis is forced by NBA rules to either sit out a year, play overseas or play college basketball for a year prior to entering the NBA. Simply because John Calipari is an NCAA men's basketball head coach doesn't make him partially culpable for the NBA rule requiring Anthony Davis to play/sit out a year before entering the NBA, any more than Bill Self is culpable for coaching a group of basketball players at Kansas who may someday want to enter the NBA.

a season during which his work paid him no money, and helped John Calipari haul in at least seven figures.

You are blaming John Calipari for participation in the NCAA system. What does the author expect Calipari to do? Quit? If he quit as the head men's basketball coach at Kentucky would the NCAA system all of a sudden become fair and NBA prospects are no longer risking injury to play basketball in college? Of course not. Calipari coaches within an unfair system, but this doesn't make him culpable for the unfairness of the system.

Davis took a huge risk because artificial and unjust rules forced him to, and he’ll never be compensated for taking that risk—but his coach was.

So again, while being a problem spotter and not a problem solver, what is the solution here? Should John Calipari stop coaching college basketball because the rules are so unfair, which of course would fix nothing because 300+ other Division-I college coaches are still coaching teams under the same unfair rules they would embrace if Anthony Davis wanted to go to their school? Should John Calipari just not get paid for coaching the Kentucky men's basketball team? That seems like a rather unreasonable conclusion.

That would be true at any other college.

Which only highlights the absurdity of blaming John Calipari for an institutional problem.

Second, the notion that every instance of a star recruit making the NBA is an instance of a fair deal ignores how even those nominal successes can be screwed by their time in college (even apart from the fact that they don’t get paid for their work while there)

This is the part where the author has already blamed John Calipari for his recruits having to spend a year in college, allowing his prospective one-and-done guys to play basketball in live action games, thereby risking them getting injured, but now blames Calipari for the NBA rookie pay scale. That's his fault too now. 

Consider fellow Kentucky big man Nerlens Noel. Superficially, Noel might seem to buttress McCarthy’s point: He arrived at Kentucky as the top recruit in the nation, tore his ACL just weeks before the NCAA tournament in his freshman season, and still went on to a lucrative NBA contract as the sixth overall pick in the following draft.

BUT NO! McCarthy wasn't considering factors which John Calipari didn't have a hand in creating or legislating that show how Calipari is the real problem. If you consider another factor out of Calipari's control, it just goes to show the evil nature of Calipari and how he abuses his prospective one-and-done basketball players merely by choosing to coach college basketball. This is abuse caused only by Calipari.

But then, account for the NBA’s rookie pay scale system, under the rubric of which draft position determines salary for all first-round picks. Prior to his ACL injury, Noel was the presumptive first overall pick in the 2013 draft (actually, “presumptive” may not be strong enough; that he would go first overall was a virtual certainty); when the draft finally rolled around, he fell to sixth, thanks to concerns about his leg and how recovery might hamper his development.

So once you factor John Calipari's culpability in creating the NBA rookie pay scale system (which he has none), then you can see the real evil behind his mad schemes. So what if no men's college basketball coach had anything to do with the NBA rookie pay scale system? Fuck it, blame them anyway.

Here is another scam that John Calipari participates in. This so-called "American Dream" where everyone has a shot to succeed. How about those who never got a shot to succeed? Doesn't John Calipari care about them? He earns millions of dollars working at a lucrative job, while thousands go hungry, living on the streets, and without sufficient food or shelter. If John Calipari really cared about the scam of the "American Dream" then he would move to another country where (a) there is no poverty or homelessness or (b) no one pretended to care about the poverty and homelessness. As long as John Calipari lives in the United States, he's all a part of the scam.

The first overall pick, Anthony Bennett, received a first-year salary of $4,436,900; Noel, at sixth, received $2,643,600—a difference of almost $1.8 million in their rookie season alone.

And is John Calipari going to reimburse Noel for that $1.8 million difference caused by no actions on Calipari's part other than a freak injury occurring to Noel when Calipari had chosen to put Noel in the game? Of course not. It's all a part of Calipari's plan to recruit one-and-done basketball players and then steal hypothetical money from them when they get injured on the court, all the while Calipari is manically laughing at how his team has now a lesser chance of winning a championship. It's all part of the plan that John Calipari and the NCAA have.

Of course, one could also point out that Anthony Bennett was also a one-and-done guy, so the money Noel "lost" was "gained" by Bennett through the scam Dave Rice is running at UNLV where he recruited Bennett to play basketball. Dave Rice is culpable as a basketball coach in the NCAA scam too, right?

Over the maximum five-season lifespan of his rookie deal, Noel’s draft position is worth about $11,000,000 less than if he’d gone first overall, as he would have if he hadn’t suffered the ACL injury.

This has to be one of the most poorly defended articles I have read in a while. Okay, that's sad for Noel. I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with John Calipari. If Noel didn't tear his ACL as a member of the Kentucky basketball team then he could have done it as a member of the UNC or Indiana basketball team. I wouldn't argue against the NCAA costing Noel this money, but dragging Calipari into it due to his status as a basketball coach for an NCAA team is ridiculous.

And unlike Alex Poythress, the Kentucky player who decided of his own free will to return to school and wound up with an expensive and prospect-darkening ACL injury of his own, Noel didn’t lose a dice roll of his own choosing.

So now we are differentiating between the risk on the court a guy who may be one-and-done takes with the risk on the court a guy who may play in the NBA but chooses to stay in school for 3-4 years takes? The risk is the exact same. Nerlens Noel could easily go back to school and turn into a guy who stays in college for 3-4 years. All of a sudden, Calipari is no longer responsible for Noel's draft status!

He played the single season of college ball essentially mandated by the NBA’s age restriction, got injured, and got screwed.

But Noel could have gone back to school. Alex Poythress would have left after his freshmen year too if his draft stock would have been higher at that point. Noel rolled the dice of his own choosing by not coming back to school for his sophomore year. He could have made the same decision that Poythress made.

(Before anyone does the whole Hey, Nerlens Noel made $2.6 million his rookie year—if that’s getting screwed, sign me up thing: Likely there are people who would happily do your job for 40 percent less pay, too. Probably you would feel pretty screwed if your employer told you that you were about to become one of them.)

This isn't close to being an accurate parallel. A more accurate parallel would be if I had the chance to get a job, but because of circumstances out of my control they re-opened the job search and hired someone else for the position and paid them more than they were offering me. Then I would get a similar job for less pay at another company.

None of this—the NBA’s unjust age restriction and rookie wage scale, the NCAA’s criminal restrictions on athlete compensation and unfair asymmetry of risk—is John Calipari’s doing, or John Calipari’s fault.

I must have misread that. I'll try again.

None of this—the NBA’s unjust age restriction and rookie wage scale, the NCAA’s criminal restrictions on athlete compensation and unfair asymmetry of risk—is John Calipari’s doing, or John Calipari’s fault.

Oh, what you write does say it is John Calipari's fault. The author states the following in this column:

He deserves less criticism for breaking NCAA rules and more for profiting from them, because even his “Players First” arrangement forces players to take huge risks for a reward artificially delayed by NCAA and NBA rules, while he himself risks nothing at all and has a guaranteed seven-figure annual reward no matter what becomes of the players who do all the valuable work.

It sort of sounds like he is blaming Calipari for the unfair asymmetry of risk and unjust age restriction doesn't it?

You may rightly assert that his Wildcat pedigree and Calipari’s imprimatur helped secure Noel’s draft position against concerns about his health, in service of a Coach Cal gets his guys paid! argument.

But then, account for the NBA’s rookie pay scale system, under the rubric of which draft position determines salary for all first-round picks. Prior to his ACL injury, Noel was the presumptive first overall pick in the 2013 draft (actually, “presumptive” may not be strong enough; that he would go first overall was a virtual certainty); when the draft finally rolled around, he fell to sixth, thanks to concerns about his leg and how recovery might hamper his development. The first overall pick, Anthony Bennett, received a first-year salary of $4,436,900; Noel, at sixth, received $2,643,600—a difference of almost $1.8 million in their rookie season alone.

Doesn't this sound a bit like blaming Calipari for the rookie wage scale? Specifically since this was a point brought up to counter an argument that Calipari's success makes him different from rival coaches and therefore shouldn't be put to blame for "the deal" he offers his players.

The point isn’t that Calipari is out here doing anything more evil than what his counterparts are doing at other big-money NCAA programs—he’s not—but that the NCAA system itself is so corrupt and compromised, the ripping-off of athletes so fundamental to its business, that it cannot be navigated in a humane and ethical fashion by a coach.

So why in the hell are you singling out Calipari for disdain? Other than it pumps up pageviews and the comment section to have a debate about Calipari, of course.

To coach in the NCAA is to perpetrate the rip-off. John Calipari might make it as painless as it can be, but it’s still a rip-off—for Alex Poythress, for Nerlens Noel, for Anthony Davis, for all of them—and Calipari is still on the side of it that participates by choice. The side of it that gets paid.

As is every single NCAA college coach. I don't get the point that is trying to be proven here.

Tellingly, the defense of Calipari winds up echoing defenses of the NCAA itself. McCarthy objects to the use of Poythress to illustrate the shortcomings of Calipari’s “Players First” principle, on grounds that Poythress, who stayed in college longer than he had to and suffered a torn ACL for it, will still “have a free college education to show for his time at Kentucky.”

Well, that defense sucks then. There is no required defense of John Calipari. He coaches men's basketball at the University of Kentucky. Some of his players who choose to go to the NBA after one year, as they are required to wait that long by NBA rule. Some players wait longer than one year to go to the NBA and other players of his have no chance of making the NBA. John Calipari tries to win games for the University of Kentucky while teaching his players how to play basketball better, which may or may not help them make it into the NBA. His track record says he is pretty good at getting his players into the NBA while following the one-and-done rule set out by the NBA. The rookie wage scale has nothing to do with NCAA college basketball.

Remember that Poythress will have earned this education by playing many hundreds of hours of basketball for the university—basketball that generates far more money for the university and the NCAA than they return to him in the form of his athletic scholarship.

If John Calipari died as a child, then Alex Poythress would still be playing hundreds of hours for a university and receiving no money in return for the money he generates for the university.

Poythress has not received a “free college education.” He has received an incredibly expensive one! He has paid more for his college education than the average college graduate will spend in a lifetime.

When you find evidence that John Calipari is directly responsible for college athletes not getting paid, then call me.

To accept the premise that an undergraduate education is—or even can be—a fair return for the work high-level college basketball players do is to accept the central lie of “student athletics.” If Calipari’s deal as presented by McCarthy—NBA jobs after a year of underpaid work for some, free college educations for the rest—is a fair one, then so is the NCAA itself.

Maybe this is true. It sounds like both McCarthy and the author here are arguing about whether college athletes should get paid, but putting "Calipari" in the title in effort to gain more attention for the same old tired argument.

In this case the sheen of principled rebellion evaporates from Calipari’s rules violations in an instant, and he’s just a guy who cheats to get ahead, then leaves the consequences for others to absorb.

Oh, we are talking about Calipari's rules violations now.

But the NCAA’s deal isn’t a fair one. An undergraduate education isn’t a fair return for the work college basketball players do. And so Alex Poythress’s decision to stay in school and pursue his degree doesn’t vindicate Calipari’s methods.

If the NCAA isn't a fair deal, then no methods used by any NCAA athletic coach are vindicated in any way. This is because zero college athletes get paid for participating in their sport and generating revenue for the school. This is true whether the athletes be women's soccer players at Lehigh University or football players at the University of Texas. These athletes spend hundreds of hours of their time trying to perfect the sport they aren't getting paid to perfect. If the system is corrupt, this means any athletic coach in the NCAA is culpable on the same level as Calipari. No method used by a coach, interestingly other than to commit a rules violation (that the author felt the need to randomly bring up as a case against Calipari's methods) by paying the players, will vindicate that coach's methods because the NCAA system is corrupt.

Calipari runs the scam without the bullshit pretense of some lofty pedagogical mission, but it’s still a scam.

It's a scam, but not a scam of Calipari's doing. He's trying to do what other men's basketball coaches are trying to do, which is work within the rules and recruit a team that wins games. It's not Calipari's scam, he's simply choosing to work at the University of Kentucky. His quitting as the head coach at Kentucky would have zero impact on the scam the NCAA is running. Therefore, his culpability is the same as every other coach's culpability, yet for some reason other coaches aren't mentioned in this column. Weird.

McCarthy and other defenders are right to say that Calipari offers the closest thing to an honest bargain players can get from college basketball. It’s also true, though, that the comparison makes Calipari appear better than he is. Only in the context of the NCAA would justice-minded people look at him—a millionaire management-class white dude who asks for a year of underpaid labor, rather than four, from his black teenage workers—and see a beacon of fairness.

What are Calipari's other options again? Other than to quit his job as the head coach at Kentucky, of course. I don't think some people see a beacon of fairness in having basketball players at Kentucky stay there for a year before they go to the NBA. I think Calipari offers certain college basketball players a way to reach their goal of making it into the NBA, just like other NCAA men's basketball head coaches offer prospective one-and-done players or even players that will be at the school risking injury over a four year period.

Go easy on him, the other ticks are much thirstier. That flattering comparison is another of the many ways John Calipari profits not in spite of the NCAA’s awfulness, but because of it.

I don't think this article was quite as profound or persuasive as the author believes it was. To frame this argument in the context of John Calipari and try to make it seen as he's hero for college athletes is very misguided. It's simply not true. The basic argument McCarthy was making was this:

The NCAA is, for lack of a better word, evil. But while John Calipari might not be a hero fighting against its crooked ways, he isn’t the villain that many, including Burneko, have described.

Right, Calipari isn't the villain. Because if he is the villain then every other NCAA coach who participates in the scam is a villain as well. If the author doesn't blame Calipari for the NBA's rookie salary structure, the one-and-done rule, restrictions on athletes' compensation and the asymmetry of risk then what is he blaming Calipari for? Being a cog in the machine? I guess both arguments pro- and anti-Calipari are wrong in that case.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

0 comments My 2015 NCAA Tournament Bracket

My favorite time of the year is NCAA Tournament time. Since it starts today then I figured I would share my bracket and explain myself a little bit about why I picked the bracket in the way I did. If you feel up to it, put predictions below as well. I'm sure I've told this story before, but I have only won one NCAA Tournament pool and that was the pool for my wife's office. They sprung it on her at the last minute and she handed me the bracket to fill out and I filled it out in about two minutes. It ended up being the winning bracket. Now I spend more time than I should making my picks and can't win shit. Such is life.

By the way, I was going to attach a file that showed my bracket, but I could only attach it as a link (rather than an image) and that annoyed me so I figured I would just take the time to write my picks out of protest.

Midwest Region

Round of 64

Kentucky over Hampton
Purdue over Cincinnati
Buffalo over West Virginia
Maryland over Valparaiso
Texas over Butler
Notre Dame over Northeastern
Wichita State over Indiana
Kansas over New Mexico State

I tried not to predict too many upsets this year, because it really burned me last year and I got "Wanting there to be an upset" confused with "Do I really think there will be an upset?" Not so this year. There are exceptions of course. I think Buffalo is underseeded and West Virginia is injured to where the Buffalo team is going to be able to beat them. Otherwise, I'm trusting Rick Barnes, which is always a shaky proposition and one I will probably regret. Betting on Rick Barnes is the dumbest pick I have made so far.

Round of 32

Kentucky over Purdue
Buffalo over Maryland
Notre Dame over Texas
Wichita State over Kansas

I like Maryland, but they have won so many close games this year. At some point they need to have some bad luck. Running into a really good Buffalo team that can defend the perimeter is going to be that bad luck. I also think the loss of Cliff Alexander will hurt Kansas and the experience of Baker, Van Fleet, Cotton and Gregg Marshall will have them pay forward the upset they suffered in the Round of 32 last year to Kentucky. 

Sweet Sixteen

Kentucky over Buffalo
Notre Dame over Wichita State

Notre Dame is too good when they get hot. Kentucky is good to lose in the Sweet Sixteen. 

Elite Eight

Kentucky over Notre Dame

This would be a fun game to watch, but I think in the end, it will be Kentucky's depth inside and perimeter defense that will hold Notre Dame back from hitting 3's and making a game of this one.

West Region

Round of 64

Wisconsin over Coastal Carolina
Oregon over Oklahoma State
Arkansas over Wofford
North Carolina over Harvard
Mississippi over Xavier
Baylor over Georgia State
VCU over Ohio State
Arizona over Texas Southern

Admittedly, this is pretty boring. I want Wofford to beat Arkansas, but I can't see Wofford handling the Arkansas press. Every year there is a First Four team that makes the Round of 32 it seems and that team is Mississippi this year. Otherwise, it's chalk for me.

Round of 32

Wisconsin over Oregon
North Carolina over Arkansas
Baylor over Mississippi
Arizona over VCU

North Carolina can handle Arkansas' press because they have three point guards who can take care of the ball. I don't trust Scott Drew and his Baylor team, but they are long and play a zone defense that most teams need more than two days to prepare for. VCU just doesn't have the height to deal with Arizona's big men and T.J. McConnell and Gabe York will handle "Havoc."

Sweet Sixteen

North Carolina over Wisconsin
Arizona over Baylor

I know, it's dumb to pick UNC to pick Wisconsin or at least it seems that way. I believe they have the athleticism to defend Wisconsin on the perimeter and have the height to rebound well against them. I believe UNC is peaking right now and the big guys UNC has will match up well with Frank Kaminsky. UNC not being able to shoot the 3 does concern me though. Arizona has shooters and can shoot over the Baylor zone, plus I just think they are the better team. Though it will be fun to watch Rico Gathers rebound against Arizona's big men, which is a group that doesn't have a dominant rebounder.

Elite Eight

Arizona over North Carolina

Arizona matches up better with North Carolina than Wisconsin did. They have athleticism and experience at the point guard position that will result in Arizona getting the shots they want on offense. I don't know if UNC can defend Stanley Johnson and Hollis-Jefferson effectively. I think Arizona is the better team...this year.

East Region

Round of 64

Villanova over Lafayette
NC State over LSU
Northern Iowa over Wyoming
UC-Irvine over Louisville
Providence over Dayton
Oklahoma over Albany
Michigan State over Georgia
Virginia over Belmont

This is the region where I was very tempted to choose upsets, but chickened out. I can see Wyoming, Dayton, and Belmont winning. I don't think they will, but I think they all have a good chance to give the higher seed trouble. Louisville's inability to shoot the 3 or score in the paint causes me to choose UC-Irvine, while I genuinely have no idea which LSU and NC State teams will show up. Both teams are schizophrenic to the point of annoyance.

Round of 32

Villanova over NC State
Northern Iowa over UC-Irvine
Oklahoma over Providence
Michigan State over Virginia

It's not that I don't like Virginia. I can see them winning the national title, but not when Justin Anderson isn't completely healthy, which he isn't. Virginia can go long periods without scoring and the toughness they display in preventing other teams from scoring will be matched by MSU's toughness. In the end, I love Virginia on defense, but I'm afraid a scoring drought will set them back. This could be a 48-44 game.

Sweet Sixteen

Villanova over Northern Iowa
Oklahoma over Michigan State

The better teams will win. Oklahoma can easily lay an egg and their lack of height does bother me a bit against MSU, but I can't get past the Sooners excellent starting five. They probably have the best starting five in this region. I wanted to pick them to make the Final Four, but couldn't get brave enough to do that.

Elite Eight

Villanova over Oklahoma

Villanova has (sort of) been ignored for most of the year I think. They lack height, but otherwise can shoot the hell out of the ball and play great defense. I can only trust Oklahoma's lack of depth so far and the Elite Eight is that limit for me.

South Region

Round of 64

Duke over Robert Morris
San Diego State over St. John's
Stephen F. Austin over Utah
Georgetown over Eastern Washington
SMU over UCLA
Iowa State over UAB
Davidson over Iowa
Gonzaga over North Dakota State

Pretty boring, I must admit. It's not that I don't like Utah as a team. Every year I pick a team to lose in the opening round and they seem to go to the Elite Eight or the Final Four. UConn was that team last year. Utah could be that team this year. Stephen F. Austin returns much of the same team that beat VCU last year and they shoot the ball really well, as well as are good on the offensive boards. I think they pull the upset.

Round of 32

Duke over San Diego State
Stephen F. Austin over Georgetown
Iowa State over SMU
Gonzaga over Davidson

Gonzaga wins the game between the two teams that will most likely have a "white-out" at some point during the game. I don't trust Duke at all due to shaky defense, but I think they prevail over a San Diego State team that can't always score well. Georgetown loses to a double-digit seed every year. It's tradition.

Sweet Sixteen

Duke over Stephen F. Austin
Iowa State over Gonzaga

I don't believe in Gonzaga. I just don't. I think Iowa State is the better defensive team, and while Gonzaga can shoot, I'm not sure outside of Arizona and BYU (both teams they lost to) they have faced a team that score at a high level like Iowa State can. They are really efficient.

Elite Eight

This is where Duke's run ends this year. Duke plays shitty defense at times and are susceptible to guards who can get in the lane and teams that can rebound well. That's what Iowa State does.

Final Four

Kentucky over Arizona
Villanova over Iowa State

Arizona matches up well with Kentucky, and while I don't know if I'm convinced Kentucky is a juggernaut when faced against a team with strong shooting guards and small forwards (which Arizona has), I think the inside game of Kentucky and the fact they can run four guys at Ashley and Tarczewski (who I think are kind of soft at times) will be the difference in the game. Still, Arizona has a big advantage in that I'm not sure who on Kentucky can guard Stanley Johnson. If a team is going to beat Kentucky then it will be a team that can offensive rebound (because Kentucky big men tend to give up rebounds in favor of going for the block) and has a couple wing guys that Kentucky can't guard. Trey Lyles is a versatile defender, but I'm not sure he or anyone else on the Kentucky roster can guard a true, talented small forward. Villanova will beat Iowa State because Iowa State isn't great at defense. Villanova will get three point shots based on penetration and Pinkston is going to be able to hold his own against the Cyclones inside. Villanova will be too explosive for Iowa State.

Championship Game

Kentucky over Villanova

The perimeter defense and ability to have height inside to take away Villanova's drives will be the key to this game. Kentucky sometimes focuses TOO MUCH on blocking shots, and can be exposed against good rebounding teams. Villanova can rebound well, but Kentucky has the ability to take away the mid-range game for Villanova and turn them into a team that has trouble penetrating, so they have to try and shoot over the defense. Turning Villanova into a jump shooting team only is one way to beat them.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

0 comments Phil Mushnick Probably Hates Puppies Due to Their Exaggerated Sense of Optimism

Phil Mushnick hates everything. He crapped on Adrian Peterson after the death of his son and believed Florida Gulf Coast University to be the end of humanity as we know it because of the way they celebrated their achievements on the basketball court. Just a year later college basketball still hasn't recovered from the damage Florida Gulf Coast has done to the sport. Even the name "Phil Mushnick" sounds like the name of a person who hates everything. It doesn't sound like the name of a happy person and reminds me of cold oatmeal on a dreary, rainy day. So maybe it's his name's fault that Phil seems so unhappy.

So Phil has two weird, overly nitpicky issues with the world today. One deals with sports lingo and the other deals with DeSean Jackson being a gang member. We all know by now that Phil likes racist lingo, so he obviously will also totally think Jackson is a gang member. What's interesting is Mushnick was defending the Texas Tech fan pushed by Marcus Smart, saying the media was too quick to label him a racist. Yet, Phil is quick to call Jackson a gang member when there's no proof this is true. Interesting how that works.

First, I'll start with the inane sports lingo that hurts Phil's delicate ears and offends his sense of crotchetiness.

We’ve been too hard on ourselves, blaming our runaway imaginations and caught in a trap with our superstitious minds. There is a Dept. of Linguistic Nonsense within TV networks.

Sort of like the nonsense that was the first sentence of this column?

There is because there must be.

And so it was.

Having suffered the latest new-age nonsense football season — standard, self-evident, hardly-worth-speaking acts such as jumping were decorated with fantastic claims of “verticality” and “high-pointing the football,” basketball is now under siege.

You know how you know Phil Mushnick is an older gentleman? He clearly has few cares in the world and these small little problems annoy him because he now lacks bigger, more important problems. It's why my mother can tell a 10 minute story about a refrigerator repairman making a snide comment about her fridge. She lacks bigger issues, so the fridge comment is the bigger issue. As an older gentleman, Phil lacks much bigger problems so the lingo announcers use really annoys him.

Friday night on CBS, Kentucky was up on Kansas State 29-23 with 44 seconds left in the first half, thus nearly 21 minutes left in regulation. Yet, that’s when the NCAA Tournament’s lead analyst, Greg Anthony, announced, “It’s a two-possession game.”

Oh my God, he said that? It's accurate sure, but doesn't Greg Anthony realize the ramifications of saying how many possessions Kansas State needs to tie the game up? This makes the damage Florida Gulf Coast did to college basketball last season seem minor in comparison.

It would be preposterous to even consider K-State’s strategy at that point would be to stop Kentucky from scoring on its next two possessions then shoot — and make — two consecutive 3-point shots to tie the game.

Yes, it would be preposterous to consider that strategy, but not nearly as preposterous as worrying about whether an announcer says "it's a two-possession game" or "it's a six point game." That's a real concern.

Yet, by saying “it’s a two-possession game,” rather than “it’s a six-point game” or, better yet, saying nothing and allowing the score graphic to serve its purpose, Anthony went with the latest foolish fashion

I didn't even know this was a fashion to say "It's a X-possession game." I guess this is why Phil gets paid the big bucks to point out these trends in his 100 word columns. Saying "it's a two-possession game" instead of "it's a six-point game" is really six of one, half dozen of the other. In the realm of minor deals, this is a very minor deal. Both statements are true, one annoys Phil for some reason that will forever remain unclear outside of a vague reference to "foolish fashion."

— up there with “score the basketball” — telling us K-State was now just two possessions — both 3-pointers — away from tying the game 

Saying, "it's a two-possession game" is essentially a way of pointing out Kansas State is within striking distance of tying the game up. It's a phrase.

(Coach Blatherskite: “We tried to make it a seven-possession game before the half, but we kept turning it over. We have to do a better job of reducing the number of possessions we’re down, especially three-point possessions, in the second half.”)

Just hilarious. I'm surprised Phil doesn't get a job writing comedy routines. Even Jay Leno would cringe at this joke.

Minutes later, Len Elmore, analyzing the Virginia-Coastal Carolina game on TBS, noted, with Virginia up three, “It’s a one-possession game.”

That would have held some meaning if there were, oh, 43 seconds left, but Elmore’s observation — words he’d never have considered saying a few years ago

Len Elmore has foolishly given in to this announcing trend rather than stick to saying it is a three-point game and essentially relaying the same information as if he had said "it's a three-point game." Semantics, it's what Phil Mushnick is all about.

— was seriously spoken with nine minutes left!

Nine minutes left! There were 540 seconds left in this game. 15% of an hour was left in this game. 22.5% of this game was still left and Len Elmore had the audacity to point out a #16 seed was one possession away from tying up a game against a #1 seed, which obviously isn't important considering a #1 seed has never beaten a #16 seed. Why would this information be relevant at all?

Yesterday, Stanford up 18-16 six minutes left in the first half, Anthony again chose the long-form way to say nothing, expertly noting it’s “a one-possession game.”

And of course if Anthony had noted it's "a two-point game" then this comment would have been much insightful given the fact few viewers can subtract 18 from 16 and figure this information out on their own. Stating it's "a two-point game" is also saying nothing.

The easy and simple are now served larded in excessive, silly words and expressions, as needless as they are ridiculous.

(coughs) Like this article.

Saturday, TNT studio host Matt Winer reported Iowa State’s Georges Niang will miss the rest of the NCAAs with a broken foot. “A versatile player,” said Winer, “he’s going to be missed, going forward.”

I can't believe Matt Winer said this. Shocking really.

“Going forward”? That’s another one, as if … aw, forget it.

What Winer meant was "going forward" through the NCAA Tournament Niang will be missed. Obviously he will be missed in the future, but as Iowa State tries to advance in the NCAA Tournament his presence will be missed "going forward" though the tournament. That's what he meant and it makes sense to say this.

Neither Jim Nantz nor Greg Anthony saw fit to note Sunday that Stanford, up three and with chances to commit a foul with under :08 left, allowed Kansas’ best long-range shooter a shot to tie the game near the buzzer!

Probably because they were too busy pointing out it was a one-possession game!

Now Phil Mushnick rails against me-first antics and also jumps to the conclusion that DeSean Jackson obviously was a gang member. Because Phil is clearly an expert on gangs and gang behavior, he KNOWS DeSean Jackson is a gang member. 

Q: When is the logical, decent time to start a weekend MLB game in NYC in April? 1 p.m., no?

I don't know, why is that a good time to start a weekend MLB game in New York City? Also, I like how Phil writes "decent" in there as if any other option would be fairly considered indecent.

Well, four weekend April night games are scheduled — two Yankee Sunday 8:05 numbers for ESPN, two Saturday 7:10 jobs for SNY’s Mets.

Oh no, have you called the police and reported the Mets/Yankees for public indecency? What did they say about this?

Baseball’s gold standard, on Bud Selig’s watch, remains gold. Patrons now can choose between being taken for granted and going to hell.

I think this may be a little bit of an overreaction to two 7:10pm and two 8:05pm start times for baseball games.

We’re lost in the woods.

"Everything was better when gays kept it to themselves, blacks had their own water fountains, and women were allowed to vote but only when they weren't cleaning the house. Society is lost now. The only thing to do is complain about it and hold covertly racist opinions."

Why would it be shocking if DeSean Jackson, is affiliated with a gang, and thus likely to be party, witness or have knowledge of blood and body-bag crime?

Because this doesn't seem like the natural path for one of the NFL's best receivers to take when he has plenty of options available to him because of his athletic skill and ability to generate income from that skill? Why wouldn't it be shocking that DeSean Jackson is affiliated with a gang?

At this point, in a world gone nuts, there must be dozens of NCAA, NFL and NBA players who belong to drugs-guns-murder street gangs,

No hockey players though, because they are mostly white and we all know white athletes would never belong to drugs-guns-murder street gangs. There's no way some of those Russian hockey players would have ANY ties to the Russian mafia, which apparently Phil Mushnick doesn't count as a drugs-guns-murder street gang because they are just so damned organized! Hockey definitely has never had a gang problem. Not at all. 

“Omerta,” as per gang-bangers, is childishly known as “don’t snitch.” But violators suffer similar results: They become dead people, friends and/or family often included. 

And none of this has seemed to happen in the case of DeSean Jackson, hence why it would be shocking that he is a member of the Crips. I know it's easy to jump to conclusions when they fit a preconceived notion, but Jackson wouldn't be the first athlete to know gang members but not have an actual affiliation to them or participate in their gang activities.

The condition of money-mutilated college sports placed Jackson, on full scholarship, at prestigious Cal-Berkeley, where, perhaps, he first met Crips in the library or when invited to play on their intramural softball team.

Absolutely hilarious. It's not at all possible the DeSean Jackson grew up around Crips and that explains how he knows them. I like how Phil wants to be so certain that Jackson is affiliated with the Crips. It's important to rush to judgment in situations like this.

Jackson’s an enormously talented receiver or no one would care if he lived — maybe even to 30 — or died.

Son of a bitch, Phil is acting like Jackson is deeply affiliated with the Crips and when he isn't catching passes he's out gang-banging in his local neighborhood. This entire sentence works under the assumption that Jackson is a member of the Crips and is in immediate danger of dying (which of course who cares if he dies or not, right?) in a hail of gun fire.

But if his off-field act tilts toward the criminal, his on-field conduct is a form of premeditated, first-degree assault on his sport.

Brilliant writing here to tie in Jackson's clearly obvious gang connections with Mushnick's extreme dislike for athletes celebrating their achievements on the field. Why doesn't Jackson just go and wear a fur coat on the sidelines like only the modern me-first athlete would?

He’s among the NFL’s most self-involved post-catch me-dancers, exceedingly self-impressed, regardless of the score or other pertinent team circumstances.

It seems Phil Mushnick wants DeSean Jackson to be a gang member simply because he doesn't like the way Jackson behaves on the field.

Jackson’s on-field behavior is so repugnant, NBC chose him to star perform a me-dance in the intro to every Sunday night NFL telecast.

That is repugnant to celebrate after catching a touchdown pass. Clearly, DeSean Jackson deserves to die in the most violent fashion possible. Fortunately, he is an active member of the Crips and takes part in killing human beings, so he will probably be murdered fairly soon. What a great day for Phil Mushnick that will be.

The Jets remain interested, regardless? If so, no surprise. The Woody Johnson Jets have shown an eagerness to pursue every talented creep who becomes available as a matter of can’t-indulge-him-any-longer expendability.

I know, look at them trading for Tim Tebow just a few years ago.

New Jet Michael Vick, a felon, tweeted support of his ex-Eagles teammate: “Want to wish my bro [Jackson] much success where ever he land his next opportunity.”

Oh my, Mike Vick supports DeSean Jackson. The obviousness that Jackson is a low-life criminal has never been made more plain.

He’s another who should avoid tweeting rather than universally suggest that he’s another college man — Virginia Tech — with literacy issues. Why not just call Jackson, wish him luck?

I don't know, maybe the same reason Phil Mushnick doesn't call DeSean Jackson and tell him his behavior on the field is repugnant or the same reason Phil Mushnick compliments people in his column rather than call these people. Maybe Phil should call Mike Vick and tell him he thinks he has literacy issues. Phil uses this column to compliment people, saying things like this:

Not that TV’s shot-callers would know or care, but Jim Spanarkel, who neither shouts nor hollers, specializes in saying useful things.

Saturday on CBS, early in Michigan-Texas — Michigan up 11-6 and out-running Texas, Spanarkel claimed the Longhorns were short on oxygen. “There are a couple of guys out there who are waiting — desperately — for a timeout.”

Two seconds later, Texas missed a shot, Michigan rebounded then out-ran Texas the other way to score a quick, easy layup.

If Vick should just call Jackson (because all felons have each other's phone number of course), then why doesn't Phil just call Spanarkel?

Then, because he hasn't nitpicked this issue enough, Phil takes time in this column to complain about announcers saying "it's a X-possession game."

With 3:10 left in the first half of Louisville-Kentucky, Greg Anthony reported, “it’s “a two-possession game.” Good thing he did. Otherwise, writes reader Jeff Butler of Stratford, Conn., “I might not have stuck around for the end.”

It's sad to see someone agrees with Phil. These are his readers.

Two minutes later — 21 of them left in regulation — Anthony, who again might have allowed the score to speak for itself, said it’s “a one-possession game.”

Because this is so much sillier than just saying "it's a two-point game" or something similar to that. They say the same thing of course. What else should we expect from Greg Anthony? He was part of the UNLV team in the early 90's that was just a bunch of gang-bangers and felons playing basketball when they weren't out killing people.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

5 comments Phil Mushnick Can't Allow Other Humans to Feel Joy, Has to Crap on Florida Gulf Coast University a Little

There's always that guy. I probably have been that guy on a few occasions. He is that guy who always has something negative or contrary to say no matter how great a situation may be. He's the guy who always says, "Well, they will never repeat" when a team wins a championship or points out the championship/game wasn't won in impressive enough fashion. I thought we had avoided that with Florida Gulf Coast University and their run through the NCAA Tournament, but I was wrong. How can anyone dislike a team that plays with such abandon and becomes the first #15 seed to make it to the Sweet Sixteen? Well, it can be done. Phil Mushnick doesn't like TNT and CBS's coverage of Florida Gulf Coast University because of the way the Florida Gulf Coast players behave during a game. It's too "look at me" for Phil Mushnick. This is rich coming from the guy who sometimes seems to write specifically for the purpose of gaining attention.

One would think I would like Phil Mushnick since he has criticized Joe Morgan, generally doesn't like a lot of what ESPN does, and calls out announcers for inaccurate comments. Just because we like many of the same things doesn't mean we are born to be best friends. Anyway, Florida Gulf Coast University (or FGCU as I will call them out of pure laziness) is what's wrong with college basketball, while TNT/CBS are rewarding this "me first" behavior, and blah, blah, blah.

It’s unlikely Sean McManus, the chairman of CBS Sports — and the son of Jim McKay, for crying out loud — would encourage the kids in his life to acts of excessive, public immodesty.

If it helps out ratings, which it shows that it seems to have done, I bet Sean McManus would encourage any non-vulgar acts of public immodesty a person could think of while celebrating.

Throughout the first week of CBS/Turner’s NCAA Tournament presentation, the networks went ESPN on us. Although four networks televised the games, none was inclined to present basketball as a sport.

I watched every single hour, except two hours on Sunday, of the NCAA Tournament coverage and have no idea at what point the games weren't presented as a sport. Perhaps that occurred during the middle of the Iowa State-Ohio State game or at the beginning of the Temple-Indiana game and I just missed it.

The message was clear and repetitive: If you act like a self-impressed fool, we’ll minimally reward you with a slow-motion cameo.

This really wasn't the message at all. The message was "if you win a game in the NCAA Tournament then we will cover the fact you won a game, including showing footage of you celebrating the fact you won this game." I can see how Phil would have such an issue with guys like Marshall Henderson since Phil seems to treat any "urban" display of celebration with the disdain he rightfully believes it deserves. After all, there are right and wrong ways to act. To show the emotion of happiness while being a college student who helped his team win an NCAA Tournament game is not the correct way to act.

And the more you betray the sport as a sport, the greater the televised rewards. Heck, for as long as your team lasts, we’ll make you a star!

I think this is a better policy than going to a black screen whenever a player for the winning team is celebrating on the court. The NCAA Tournament is full of 18-22 year old kids, what kind of celebration is appropriate for them when coming one step closer to winning an NCAA title?

Friday and Saturday we were force-fed Mississippi gunner Marshall Henderson as a don’t-miss wild, zany, fun-for-the-whole-family act, when he’s a garbage-talking, garbage-Tweeting, chest-pounder whose bio shows a month spent in jail for purchasing drugs — with counterfeit money! — followed by parole violations.

I never really enjoyed Marshall Henderson's act. It was an act. College basketball writers seemed to be the ones more enamored with his actions during the SEC tournament and the college basketball season. Otherwise, he was just a scorer who requires plenty of shots to get his points who was playing a role he knows he gets attention for playing. I found him to be putting on an act, but it isn't TNT or CBS's fault Henderson's team beat Wisconsin and there are people who enjoy watching him play.

And to be fair, Marshall Henderson had a public profile before the NCAA Tournament. TNT and CBS didn't make him a star any more than every other network that showed Ole Miss games this year or web site that gave Henderson attention made him a star. CBS and TNT didn't create Marshall Henderson.

Ole Miss won because, 1) Wisconsin played horribly and 2) Henderson’s teammates played incredibly hard, especially in pursuit of Henderson’s missed shots.

But Ole Miss won and Marshall Henderson is the best player on the Ole Miss team. Why did Wisconsin play horribly? Was it because of the excellent defense Ole Miss played?Wasn't Henderson a part of that? I don't understand the outcome Phil Mushnick wants to achieve. Does he want CBS to not show Marshall Henderson at all? That's depriving the viewers of a player that want and have a right to see.

Although it was repeatedly explained to us that Henderson “fires up” Ole Miss, no one explained why the Rebels would need to be “fired up” to play an NCAA Tournament game.

Perhaps Marshall Henderson fires up Ole Miss when they shouldn't need being fired up in the same way Derek Jeter leads a Yankees team by example when they shouldn't need an example or Ray Lewis motivated a Ravens team before games where they shouldn't need motivating.

Saturday, during Michigan-Virginia Commonwealth, Greg Gumbel twice told us an interview was coming up with the “outspoken” Henderson.” Outspoken? On what? The minimum wage? Fracking?

He's outspoken on why he is trying to do well in the NCAA Tournament, in order to get paid and make it in the NBA. Perhaps someone needs to fire up Phil Mushnick to do some research prior to writing a column. Henderson is well-known for saying (unlike most college athletes) he is only playing now in college so he can make money as a professional later.

He’s outspoken on only one issue: himself.

And of course the only one who is allowed to be outspoken is Phil Mushnick. Henderson is outspoken in regard to his attitude towards playing in the NBA and his relationship with opposing teams' fans. So that is what he is outspoken about. He comes off as honest, even though I personally find his act to be a bit dishonest and contrived...but mostly because I am jaded.

Friday night, Florida Gulf Coast’s upset of Georgetown lost some of its wonder glow as FGCU guard Sherwood Brown seemed eager to show how ungracious and self-smitten winners can be.

So Marshall Henderson should not be shown celebrating because he didn't play well when his team won, while Sherwood Brown should not be shown celebrating because he played well and his team won. I'm pretty sure Phil wishes the players would wear a suit and tie at all times on the court, never acknowledge the fans or celebrate a good basketball play, then calmly walk off the floor after completing a historic upset.

And TV, as always, was there to help him out, encourage him.

For three good reasons:

1. Fans want to see the players react with joy upon completing a historic upset. It helps ratings because fans like to see it.

2. Brown had earned some television time by playing extraordinarily well against Georgetown. He, along with his teammates, deserved to get some attention from the cameras.

3. As screwed up as college athletics are, it is nice to see a player at a small school getting excited about an accomplishment.

Near the end of the game, Brown, playing to the crowd and the TV cameras, walked over to Len Elmore, Reggie Miller and play-by-player Kevin Harlan and shook their hands. “Hah, hah, hah! He’s loving it!” we were told.

He shook their hands? What an enormous amount of disrespect for the game of basketball!

I was watching the game at a bar and the UNC-Villanova game (and it was a tight game with a good amount of UNC fans at the bar) was on, but most eyes were watching FGCU-Georgetown and appearing to really enjoy what they were seeing. Brown going over and shaking Elmore, Miller and Harlan's hand was fun because who the hell does that? Most players ignore the announcers during a game and begrudgingly do a postgame interview.

If you see FGCU play like that and don't understand what a tremendous and remarkable upset you have witnessed, but instead focus on a player's joy being too "me first," then you simply shouldn't watch college athletics. What FGCU has done over the last week is what college athletics should be about. Sherwood Brown was a fucking walk-on, while Brett Comer was overlooked when playing high school ball on the same team as Austin Rivers and they absolutely dunked all over Georgetown and San Diego State.

Sherwood Brown's reaction wasn't him focusing selfishly on his accomplishments, but basking in the glory of the moment he helped created.

But if only one of them had refused his hand and pointed him back on the court to finish the game and show it some respect ...

Then that probably would have been a dick move. Naturally, this is what Phil Mushnick would have done.

Saturday, CBS had FGCU coach Andy Enfield and Brown in a live interview. As Brown spoke, CBS showed tape of him, after hitting a short jumper, in a demonstration of great self-regard.

It's exciting to see Brown hit these shots and then react excitedly. HE hit the shot, and HE helped FGCU upset Georgetown, so it is a moment of self-regard because he created the moment.

That was the chosen clip.

What would have been a better clip to show? Sherwood Brown walking out for the tip-off, him sitting on the bench drinking water? If viewers of the live interview had not seen the game the night before then the clip of Brown hitting the short jumper could show them the emotion and excitement they had missed during that game.

During Indiana’s blowout of James Madison, the Hoosiers’ Yogi Ferrell’s check-me-out gesture after hitting a shot became a chosen slo-mo.

Just too urban. Who are these minorities insisting on showing everyone how good they are? Whatever happened to writing a semi-racist column in order to get attention?

Countless times when CBS or Turner went to commercials, the cut-away was accompanied by the chosen, edited image of a kid show-boating. Is that really TV’s sense of what basketball’s all about, how it should be played?

No, the sport isn't supposed to be like that necessarily, but it shows the excitement the players experienced during the tournament. Where was this complaint when J.J. Redick did the shocker after making a three-point shot or after every other NCAA Tournament when players who won a game were celebrating? These are 18-22 year old kids who most likely aren't going professional in basketball, so let them have their time in the spotlight.

But that’s the bag we’re in. Wonder what would happen if we typed “Down” into our GPS?

The GPS would show a picture of those assholes at FGCU celebrating the two historic upsets they managed to serve up. How dare they celebrate these upsets though. They should simply walk off the court and not acknowledge the history they managed to make.

Any stat, any time: Spero Dedes, during Arizona-Harvard on Saturday, said the Wildcats were “on a 15-3 run.” Given that the score, at the time, was 20-5, that kinda figured.

Really? So if I had just tuned into the game and saw the Wildcats were winning 20-5 then I could figure the Wildcats were on a 15-3 run? I think the point being made was that the Wildcats were in the middle of a run that very minute and Harvard had not just scored five points in a row.

Sideliner Jaime Maggio had a funny way of putting things, reporting that Arizona’s Grant Jerrett is back on the bench after injuring his elbow, and “could return to this game if he feels up to it.” She made the tournament sound like staying home or going to a movie.

Again, we get what she was saying and anyone who isn't looking for a mistake to be made would see what she meant. The game was a blowout and if Jerrett felt like going back in the game, as opposed to resting his elbow for the rest of the game, then the doctor had cleared him to come back in the game. The point was to make it clear returning the game was up to Jerrett, not the team doctor.

Give studio guys Barkley, Kenny Smith and Ernie Johnson credit. They knew that we knew that they knew that they were just filling time with say-anything stuff at halftimes and between games.

Yes, they should get credit for being mediocre. They are useless and knew it, which means they did an outstanding job in Phil Mushnick's mind.

So kudos to Charles Barkley, Ernie Johnson and Kenny Smith for being mediocre, not knowledgeable and useless, but how dare those Florida Gulf Coast players celebrate their historic achievement within the view of a camera. Phil Mushnick is going to be very upset when he finds out CBS will be showing ON CAMERA FOR EVERYONE TO SEE the eventual NCAA Tourney champion hoisting up the trophy in celebration of their achievement and loudly celebrating this achievement. What a selfish display that will be.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

13 comments 2013 NCAA Tournament Picks

I like to embarrass myself by publicly putting my NCAA Tournament picks out there for the entire world to see prior to the tournament beginning (I guess putting my picks out there after the tourney begins would be a smarter idea). So I figured I would do it again this year. I'm a big college basketball fan, but I have never (except in high school) won an NCAA Tournament bracket and tend to be wrong in picks...except for one year when I was unemployed and I made picks for my girlfriend's office pool. I got 7 of the Elite 8 teams right and got 3 of the 4 Final Four teams correct. I guess the lesson is that I choke under the pressure of having money on picks I make and because it was her money for the office pool I made my picks without pressure of having to get them right. I'm a choker and wasteful with other people's money.

So here are my picks and reasoning for this year's NCAA Tournament games. My logic feels sound, my picks do not.

South

First Round (I refuse to call it "Second Round")

Kansas over Western Kentucky: I don't love Kansas but this just isn't happening for Western Kentucky.

North Carolina over Villanova: This really isn't a great matchup for the new look Tar Heels. They have gone small (and started their five best players, what a concept!) and now rely on the three-point shot more. Villanova guards the three-point shot well. In the end, I think Carolina is going to be able to score inside with James McAdoo.

VCU over Akron: This game gives me pause because I like Akron's ability to rebound and score, while VCU is small and over-rely on the three-point shot. VCU eats teams for lunch that don't have a strong point guard and Akron's point guard was arrested for drug trafficking (you can't make that up, enter your "he's an excellent distributor" joke here). I don't see who Akron has that will be able to beat VCU's "havoc" defense.

South Dakota State over Michigan: This is sort of a cop-out pick. Upsets happen. I don't know here else in this bracket outside of Florida-Northwestern State (which I think will be a close game) an upset will happen. These teams are quite similar. They have strong point guard play and generally don't rebound well. I think North Dakota State will be able to hit their three-point shots and rebound well enough against Morgan and McGary to get the upset. There's something about Michigan I don't trust.

UCLA over Minnesota: This is a game featuring two teams that are disasters. UCLA has talent and a ball-hog, while Minnesota has the talent and no leadership. For some reason, I trust UCLA to come out ready to play more than Minnesota. Plus, UCLA has Shabazz Muhammad.

Florida over Northwestern State: This game is going to be close in my opinion. Northwestern State will try to slow this game down where Florida isn't quite as strong in the halfcourt. In the end, I think Patric Young will be the difference in the middle and Florida's ability to get out of their halfcourt offense and run a little bit will carry them to the win.

San Diego State over Oklahoma: Another game between two disappointing teams. Oklahoma can't shoot the three-point shot and I'm a big believer that teams who can't score from the three-point line can't win NCAA Tournament games. Too much Tapley and Franklin carry SDSU to the win.

Georgetown over Florida Gulf Coast: Florida Gulf Coast has been tested this year. They beat Miami and lost to Duke (in the game where Duke went on a 31-0 run). In terms of defense, Georgetown is tougher than both Miami and Duke. FGCU isn't going to be intimidated, but Georgetown is the better team.

Second Round

UNC over Kansas: There is really no formula for beating Kansas, but teams have had success with them by spreading them out on defense and getting their offensive players in space. UNC is red-hot right now and I can see Jeff Withey getting in foul trouble against the smaller, but much quicker McAdoo. I'm very tempted to go with Kansas simply because of Ben McLemore, but Reggie Bullock is an underrated defender. It wouldn't shock me to see UNC put Bullock on McLemore and I think the smaller lineup takes down Kansas.

VCU over South Dakota State: South Dakota State has the benefit of playing a team that doesn't have much height like they do, but in a close game I see VCU winning. SDSU takes care of the basketball and that is crucial against VCU, so I won't rule out another upset, but I don't think it will happen and won't take credit for predicting one.

Florida over UCLA: This is the game where UCLA's inability to rebound and have Jordan Adams uninjured will come back to haunt them. Florida can rebound well and won't have a problem getting out and running against the Bruins. As long as Kenny Boynton doesn't start jacking up three-point shots without mercy I see the Gators being stronger than the Bruins inside and getting the win.

Georgetown over San Diego State: This is the game that should have been played last NCAA Tournament if San Diego State had gotten by N.C. State in the first round. I think Georgetown's defense can smother Franklin and will give the Aztecs fits on the offensive end. The score may be 53-41, but a win is a win.

Sweet Sixteen

VCU over UNC: Again, VCU eats up teams who don't have a strong point guard against their pressure. While Marcus Paige has made strides, he isn't quite there yet, and I think Carolina will struggle against the "havoc" defense of VCU. The problem for Carolina is they want to run and VCU won't allow them to run.

Florida over Georgetown: I've already mentioned Georgetown's ability to ugly-up a game and that initially seems like something that would give Florida problems. Tempo is the key and Florida will use it's ability to rebound and try to control the pace. In the end, I see Georgetown simply not being able to keep up with Florida on the offensive end and a Gators victory ensuing.

Elite Eight

Florida over VCU: I don't see anyone I trust for Florida to bring the ball up, but I think they have a combination of players with Boyton, Scottie Wilbekin, and Mike Rosario to handle some of the VCU pressure. They can also use Erik Murphy as a pivot in the middle of the court to break some of the pressure. I think VCU's lack of size and rebounding is going to punish them in a game against Patric Young and Florida makes it to the Final Four out of the South.

East

First Round

Indiana over LIU/JMU: I feel confident Indiana won't lose to either team.

N.C. State over Temple: I don't trust N.C. State at all, but they tend to play well when they really need to play well. The season is over if they lose in the NCAA Tournament, so I think NC State is the more talented team inside the paint. I think that's the difference in this game.

UNLV over California: I really like UNLV. Perhaps more than I should. I know Crabbe and Cobbs get can get hot and carry Cal, but they have a weakness in the front court, and UNLV has Khem Birch, Anthony Bennett, and Mike Moser. By the way, Mike Wilbon said on Monday he had never heard of Anthony Bennett. It's very shameful for him to say that. Bennett is awesome and Wilbon should know who he is.

Syracuse over Montana: My initial reaction is always to say Syracuse is going to lose in the first round. It's my gut instinct. While Montana can shoot well, they have nothing on the inside and Syracuse is going to be too talented to allow them to win this game.

Bucknell over Butler: I'm just down on Butler this year. I think they are overranked at a #6 seed and the fact they shoot well from three-point range is negated by the fact Bucknell defends the three-point shot well. I feel like Bucknell has the best player on the court and a Patriot League team will pull another first round upset.

Marquette over Davidson: This is a tempting upset pick, but I don't think it will happen. Davidson struggles when you get physical with them. If you let them run off screens and the game isn't officiated tightly they will struggle to get off shots. Marquette is a tough physical team and won't let Davidson hit open jump shots. I do look forward to this game though and hope I am wrong with my prediction.

Colorado over Illinois: If Illinois comes out hot then they will obviously win this game. The Fighting Illini can shoot themselves into or out of a game. Colorado is very good team defensive rebounding team, so if Paul and Richardson are off for the Illinois team they aren't winning this game by getting second-chance points. I am betting there will plenty of misses for Illinois.

Miami over Pacific: I like Miami for a couple of reasons. They fit the profile of teams I believe do well in the NCAA Tournament. They have strong point guard play, are a veteran team, have an X-factor (Kenny Kadji) and they can get hot from three-point range. If Reggie Johnson got his head in the game I can only imagine how good this Miami team could be.

Second Round

Indiana over N.C. State: I came close to picking this as an upset. Richard Howell can bang on the inside and give Cody Zeller issues on offense, while C.J. Leslie matches up well with Christian Watford. I quite simply don't trust N.C. State to show up two games in a row and I think there is no one on the Wolfpack roster who can guard Victor Oladipo.

UNLV over Syracuse: I told you I like UNLV, which means they will lose to Cal in the first round. Syracuse is sort of a streaky team and I think Anthony Marshall is going to be able to keep Michael Carter-Williams in check. Syracuse runs a zone and UNLV isn't afraid to shoot three-point shots. I see those three-point shots going down and I have absolutely no clue how Syracuse will guard Anthony Bennett inside or outside.

Marquette over Bucknell: I almost had the guts to make this pick. Bucknell likes to play a half-court game and I can see Marquette making this a fast game, as well as being very careful with the basketball. The Marquette guards can limit the turnovers and will prevent Bucknell from having a shot at the upset.

Miami over Colorado: Colorado is going to have problems handling Shane Larkin on the pick-and-roll. Most teams have a problem guarding him anyway and I don't think Colorado has the ability to prevent Larkin from getting in the lane. Plus, Miami can throw Gamble and Johnson at Roberson and try to limit his ability to score and rebound.

Sweet Sixteen

Indiana over UNLV: This is where I think UNLV's inexperience is going to cost them a win. Indiana is too experienced and too talented on offense and defense. They are the superior team and Christian Watford will at least make Anthony Bennett work on defense. This seems like an Indiana win due to their three-point shooting and experience.

Miami over Marquette: I like Vander Blue, but I have seen Durand Scott shut down great offensive players all year and I have no doubt he can do it again. This should be a good game, but the difference to me is Kenny Kadji. I don't think Marquette is going to be able to contain Shane Larkin and prevent Kadji from spotting up in the corner as he is prone to do. He's annoyingly effective. Actually, this entire Miami team is annoyingly effective.

Elite Eight

Miami over Indiana: This was a tough pick. I think the Hoosiers (obviously) have the advantage with Zeller in the middle, but I really like the matchup of Ferrell/Hulls/anybody else versus Shane Larkin for Miami. Indiana is athletic and I don't really know if Durand Scott can contain Victor Oladipo or slow him down, but I think Miami has the frontcourt depth to slow down Zeller and have the advantage on the wings. Miami is such an experienced team and I think in the end this game will boil down to the Hurricanes getting a stop when they need one.

West

First Round

Gonzaga over Southern: I don't know if anyone noticed, but when he was on camera celebrating the #1 seed one of the Gonzaga players smirked as if to say, "They ain't shit" on the Sunday Selection Show. I'd love to say he is wrong, but I don't think Gonzaga is losing this game.

Pittsburgh over Wichita State: Pittsburgh is ranked in the Top 20 of offensive and defensive efficiency by KenPom.com and though I do question whether they can score enough to have success in the tourney, I can see them getting past Wichita State in the first round. I think the experience of 10th year senior (okay, it just seems that way) Tray Woodall will be the difference in this game.

Wisconsin over Ole Miss: Anyone who has seen Marshall Henderson play know that he is quite the character and his ability to get hot and carry Ole Miss can not be understated. Unfortunately for him Wisconsin knows this. They will be sure to shut Henderson down and then ugly up this game for the win.

Kansas State over Boise State/LaSalle: I'm not in love with this Kansas State team and if I knew for sure who they were playing I may be more inclined to pick an upset here. Both Boise State and LaSalle have trouble defending the perimeter and Kansas State is great from the perimeter.

Belmont over Arizona: On paper this pick doesn't look like a very good pick. Arizona is tall and Belmont is very much not tall. The reason behind this pick boils down to Belmont having an experienced backcourt with Ian Clark and Kerron Johnson and Arizona struggling with turnovers. Arizona also doesn't defend the three-point shot well and Belmont is very efficient on offense. I am taking talented experience over taller and talented youth.

New Mexico over Harvard: I think New Mexico is underseeded, they are hot right now and I don't think Harvard is going to be able to pull off the upset. I have a lot of respect for Tommy Amaker though and it would be fun to see Harvard pull off the upset.

Iowa State over Notre Dame: Iowa State does not play defense. They don't even pretend to play defense. They are interested in scoring points, plus they are a much better home team. That doesn't bode well. Notre Dame can struggle to score and Iowa State tends to play well against bigger teams. I'm not sure this is an upset and I still haven't completely figured out how Iowa State will guard Jack Cooley, but maybe Iowa State plays enough defense to win.

Ohio State over Iona: Iona is an incredibly efficient basketball team. I almost picked them to win this game. The reason I did not is their best player is a point guard and Aaron Craft loves to take on the opposing team's point guard. He has had five days to figure out how to shut down Momo Jones and I have faith in him he can at least slow Jones down.

Second Round

Pittsburgh over Gonzaga: Yeah, I'm stupid. This is the second #1 seed I've had lose in the 2nd round. I like Gonzaga, but Pittsburgh has the big man (Steven Adams) to at least slow down Kelly Olynyk. Basically this game boils down to defense. I think Pittsburgh has the tough defensive ability that will allow their (relative) lack of explosiveness to not be an issue for them in this game. Pittsburgh doesn't seem to have weaknesses and I feel they are due for some good luck in the tournament.

Wisconsin over Kansas State: I didn't like Kansas State too much in the first round and I believe once they match up with Wisconsin's tough defense they are going to struggle to hit their three-point shots. Wisconsin also has the advantage in the ability to get offensive rebounds from Kansas State, who struggles at times on the defensive glass. I am going with the "boring" team.

New Mexico over Belmont: Tony Snell is another player I think America is really going to enjoy watching play and he is red hot right now. So far this year New Mexico has lost to South Dakota State, St. Louis, San Diego State, UNLV and Air Force. Outside of Air Force all of those teams have made the NCAA Tournament. Belmont's lack of height will bother them when going against Alex Kirk on the inside.

Ohio State over Iowa State: I said previously Iowa State doesn't defend, but Ohio State can defend. Ohio State only has one scorer in double figures, but they are getting more scoring from Craft recently. Iowa State will be undone by their inability to guard DeShaun Thomas or Sam Thompson and Ohio State wins this game.

Sweet Sixteen

Wisconsin over Pittsburgh: This has the potential to be a very defensive kind of game. I have a lot of faults, none of which are overrating Wisconsin's ability to play a game at their pace. Wisconsin does have a tendency to get knocked out early, but I am guessing the shooting of Sam Dekker and the ability of the Wisconsin big men to hit the three-point shot carries them past Pitt.

New Mexico over Ohio State: Ohio State doesn't exactly have a lot of scoring options. New Mexico is a team with strong guard play that can shoot the ball well. Craft can only guard either Snell or Kendall Williams for New Mexico and no disrespect to the other Ohio State guards but I think either Snell or Williams' scoring (whoever Craft doesn't guard) will be the difference in this game. New Mexico isn't an elite scoring team, but they will play good enough defense to make Ohio State play from behind.

Elite Eight

New Mexico over Wisconsin: I'm not sure I even trust Wisconsin to make it this far and I am not sure I trust New Mexico to consistently score to make it this far. New Mexico tends to struggle defensively against faster-paced teams, while Wisconsin isn't fast paced. I think the Lobos will be able to match the Badgers on the boards and then pull off a victory behind my new favorite player Tony Snell.

Midwest

First Round

Louisville over North Carolina A&T: Though I was impressed with A&T's defense in the First Four game, I just don't think they are going to be able to handle Louisville's pressure.

Colorado State over Missouri: I don't trust Missouri, mostly because I think Frank Haith isn't a great coach and the Tigers are kind of a soft team on the boards. They shouldn't be, but they are. Colorado State doesn't have a ton of height, but they have strong guard play just like Missouri does.

Oregon over Oklahoma State: Early in February I watched Oklahoma State play and told myself I probably would end up having them advance pretty far in the NCAA Tournament. Well, now I have them losing to a #12 seed. Oregon isn't a #12 seed though and they got screwed. Oregon is a balanced team (though they can't shoot) and I think they will beat Oklahoma State in a close game. I can't believe I am betting against Marcus Smart.

Saint Louis over New Mexico State: Saint Louis plays suffocating defense and New Mexico can have issues turning the ball over. I don't see why I would pick New Mexico State.

St. Mary's over Memphis: I hate being mean to Conference USA, but I'm not incredibly impressed by Memphis going perfect in the conference. Memphis doesn't get challenged because they don't have great teams in the conference. St. Mary's takes care of the ball and they aren't that overly reliant on Matthew Dellavedova in terms of scoring. I take St. Mary's for the upset.

Michigan State over Valparaiso: Tom Izzo makes it a habit of having his team prepared for the NCAA Tournament and Keith Appling and Gary Harris are too good and athletic to lose in the first round.

Creighton over Cincinnati: This is a tough pick. Cincinnati plays tough defense and Creighton plays no defense. Cincinnati can struggle scoring and Creighton has no trouble scoring. I will take Creighton's ability to make shots (because God knows if they miss them, they won't be able to get the offensive rebound) over Cincinnati's defense.

Duke over Albany: Albany has penetrating point guards and Duke can't guard penetrating point guards at all. Albany doesn't have much height and as long as Mason Plumlee doesn't have his head up his ass, Duke's advantage inside should open up three-point looks. And no, I am not at all confident Duke can win this game.

Second Round

Louisville over Colorado State: Larry Eustachy is a great coach. I just don't think his team is strong enough to beat Louisville when the game is played in Kentucky. Peyton Siva and Russ Smith are going to be able to negate the guard advantage Colorado State normally has and Louisville is simply a better team.

Oregon over Saint. Louis: I know, I know, Saint. Louis eats teams without strong ball handling alive and Oregon can't shoot. I think Dominic Artis and Oregon are going to have a plan to beat the Saint Louis defense and Saint Louis struggles when they are forced to score more than 60 points in a game. Oregon is not a team of great shooters so I can see Oregon shooting 19% in this game, but I'm betting they will take advantage of their strength inside.

Michigan State over St. Mary's: I don't trust Keith Appling too much, but I do trust Michigan State to have a plan in order to contain Matthew Dellavedova. He isn't the only good player on the St. Mary's team, but Michigan State can control the boards with Payne and Nix, while I don't think St. Mary's has an answer for Brendan Dawson.

Duke over Creighton: Doug McDermott is a difficult matchup for nearly any team. His versatility and ability to score in the post is what makes him so good. Duke won't be able to stop McDermott, but they have the length to give him problems and be physical with him. At the end of the day, Duke will feast on Creighton if the Blue Jays don't play good defense, which they usually don't.

Sweet Sixteen

Louisville over Oregon: Louisville has the guard play that will allow them to handle Dominic Artis and I have a feeling this is the kind of game where Russ Smith goes for 35 points. Louisville will have the guys to guard E.J. Singler and Louisville also has the shot blocking and rebounding to to prevent Oregon from offensive rebounding their misses.

Michigan State over Duke: Duke struggles against teams with fast point guards and big men who take up space in the middle. Look at their losses this year (Maryland twice, NC State, Miami), all of those teams have big men who are strong and can rebound as well as fast guards who can penetrate in the lane. Appling and Harris will tear up the Blue Devils porous defense and much of Mason Plumlee's success depends on him getting to the right spot in the paint and Nix/Payne will prevent that from happening.

Elite Eight

Louisville over Michigan State: Louisville is quite simply on a roll right now. In the point guard matchup of Peyton Siva versus Keith Appling I trust Siva much more. Appling seems to make a few plays per game that leave me scratching my head. If/When Louisville presses I think they can have success creating turnovers and towards the end of the year it looked like Kevin Ware and Virginia Tech-exile Montrezl Harrell started to figure it out a little bit. That's scary because Ware can shoot and Harrell can be an excellent rebounder.

Final Four

Miami over Florida: I told you Miami has the formula I look for in an NCAA title contender. These teams match up well. Both teams really don't have a traditional small forward, both teams have "stretch 4's" and both teams rebound the ball well. Like a broken record, the Gators lack of a point guard is going to really hurt them in this game. Miami loves to kick the ball out for open three-point shots on penetration and Shane Larkin makes good decisions with the ball. I see the Hurricanes advancing to the title game on the strength of their shooting and ability to shut Kenny Boynton down.

Louisville over New Mexico: As much as I like New Mexico and believe Tony Snell is going to have a breakout tournament, this is a game of strength versus strength and I like Louisville in that instance. New Mexico has the guard play to beat the Louisville pressure, but I don't know if they will have the poise that Louisville has shown in big situations so far this year. Dieng is going to be able to protect the rim and force New Mexico into shooting from the perimeter where Louisville also plays good perimeter defense.

Championship Game

Louisville over Miami: I would be very excited to see this game. Miami has the point guard play and length in the frontcourt to give Louisville issues. It would be fun to see Siva and Larkin play against each other. Scott could probably help to keep Russ Smith in check a little bit, but I do like Gorgui Dieng against Miami's interior players because Julian Gamble isn't really an offensive threat and Reggie Johnson is just fat. Louisville will make another appearance in the Final Four and this year behind the leadership of Peyton Siva and the shooting of Luke Hancock/Kevin Ware they will win it all.

Feel free to tell me how wrong my picks are. You are probably going to be right.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

12 comments Skip Bayless Talks about How the NCAA Tournament Sucks, but He'll Still Watch

It took five years (holy crap, is that correct?) but I have finally added a "trolling" label to this blog. Skip Bayless has decided to write about the NCAA Tournament and how it is exciting, but the talent level sucks compared to the NBA. It's standard Skip Bayless crap and he even manages to sneak in a knock (actually two) on LeBron James, because of course he did. If you really feel the need to read it (and I only read it out of duty to you, the readers...well, mostly I read it because I loathe myself), here is the link.

Meet Fred. He is about to win this year's ESPN Men's Tournament Challenge, beating about 7.15 million other brackets.
 
When asked how in the name of John Wooden he picked 20-loss Liberty to be the first No. 16 seed ever to upset a No.1 seed -- Duke! -- Fred will say, "John who?"
 
Then he'll explain: "I remembered the old line, 'Give me liberty or give me death,' so I said, 'Give me Liberty!' You know, the George Washington line."

Wow, I can't believe Skip Bayless is revealing to the public his secret to being a good troll---have no idea what you are talking about but state your claim loudly and with as little logical reasoning as possible and you too can get noticed! It seems since trolling is Skip Bayless's only real talent he would keep this close as if it were proprietary information.

"Whatever," Fred will say. "Look, I just got lucky with most of my picks. I didn't watch a single college basketball game this season until March Madness started."

It seems fictional Fred and Skip have something in common. Neither watch any college basketball but feel like they are expert enough to comment on the sport.

Welcome back to Madness. Absolute, divine Madness. March Madness. Or Badness.

March Badness! Get it? It's a play on words AND it shows that Skip Bayless thinks the NCAA Tournament and entire basketball season has been really boring. I'm not sure how Skip knows this college basketball season has been terrible considering he seems to have spent most of his time over the last six months debating the merits of Tim Tebow, criticizing LeBron James and looking at himself in the mirror. You can always trust the opinion of someone who claims to think Tebow is great and LeBron James has more to prove, that much I do know as true.

Prediction 1: The worst men's college basketball season I can remember

We won't fall for that one, Skip. We all know the only long or short-term memory you are capable of retaining is a constant loop of Tim Tebow running shirtless in the rain. So this is the worst men's college basketball season that you can remember because you can't remember anything other than the look of Tebow's pecs jiggling in the rain.

is about to launch the greatest NCAA tournament yet, with buzzer-beating elation and deflation exploding all over your bracket next Thursday and Friday.

Hence, the March Badness. How clever to call the tournament "March Badness" and then talk about how exciting the NCAA Tournament is.

Prediction 2: Especially this year, the more you know about college basketball, the worse you'll do in your pool.

I think it is fantastic that Skip Bayless is essentially championing being more successful by being more ignorant on the topic you are discussing. It fits Skip's personality and how he has become popular and infamous over the last decade. He's dumb on a given topic, but he has a really strong opinion on the topic. Be dumb, but give your opinion very strongly. That's pretty much the mantra of Skip's entire journalistic career.

Experts will be out-picked by dogs, cats and monkeys.

Not ironically if any of these dogs, cats or monkeys considered themselves enough of an expert to go on "First Take" then they will be debating a horses's ass.

This will happen more than ever this year because nobody's very good. And nobody watching will care.

It's good to see that Skip is copying the Bill Simmons "overuse of italics" type of writing. Also, there are teams that are very good, but the consensus seems to be there aren't great teams. Also also, I feel like I hear every single year there are no good college basketball teams.

More than ever, college basketball has become overcoached, under-reffed, evenly matched mediocrity with perfectly flawed rules and tournament format.

I'm not even close to being sure that Skip Bayless has a clue what he is talking about. Most college teams are overcoached because these teams consist of 18-22 year old kids. I'm trying to figure out what the hell Skip means by saying NCAA basketball has "perfectly flawed rules" since he, as usual, isn't specific at all when throwing random and unprovable observations like this. Skip doesn't need to be more specific because he's getting attention! Is it the three point line, the lack of consistency in the charge/block calls among officials, or the amount of physical play that is allowed that seems to vary from game-to-game? What are these perfectly flawed rules?

The open secret is that it doesn't matter to Skip. He just wants to say shit and hear you react.

Throw an overrated high seed with a panicky coach against an unknown, underrated low seed at some strange site with a strange shooting background at a strange first-round tipoff time with strange refs for a mere 40-minute game allowing only five fouls and featuring a 3-point line three feet shorter than the NBA's … you bet, you, Fred and Irene have just as good a chance picking the winner as Dickie V or Jay Bilas. Maybe better.

This just in, the NCAA Tournament is unpredictable! Thanks for noticing and commenting on this, Skip. You are the first to do so.

So yes, I trust some kid playing for LIU Brooklyn or Florida Gulf Coast to drop a walk-off bomb more than I do, say, three-time NBA MVP LeBron James.

And there we go. Just a little LeBron trolling for everyone. You didn't think Skip could make it through an entire column without one insult to LeBron James did you? This sentence doesn't even deserve a reply, other than a swift kick to the crotch of Skip while hundreds of people spit on him, but notice how obvious his trolling has become. It's pathetic. Skip couldn't name one player on LIU Brooklyn or Florida Gulf Coast, yet he claims to trust this unnamed player more than LeBron James to hit a game-winning shot.

Just watch. I know you will.

Yes, many will watch. Not because Skip Brainless tells us to, but because people find the NCAA Tournament interesting. I'm sure Skip thinks 100% of the NCAA Tournament viewership is a product of him writing this column. He dares us to watch the NCAA Tournament and then will smirk at the camera like the ego-driven dipshit he truly is and tell us how he said the NCAA Tournament would be exciting. Skip takes credit for everything. He motivated LeBron James to have the success he had last year and now the NCAA Tournament is thriving due to the words written and spoken by the lizard-skinned know-nothing troll sent by Satan to torture souls on Earth.

Who doesn't have a chance to win? Who cares that office pools are technically illegal -- unlicensed sports betting carrying a misdemeanor charge and up to one year in prison?

Nobody cares.

This column basically boils down to "It's hard to pick who is going to win the NCAA Tournament and people like gambling." The obviousness of this column is only being masked by the smarminess of Skip's writing. I will give Skip that, his personality does mask his overwhelming stupidity.

The FBI has better things to do than bust pools that build some of America's best intra-office camaraderie.

Yes, they are way too busy doing the music industry's business and busting people who download music and have the audacity to not-really-but-sort-of-kind-but-not-entirely cut into their massive profits while they squeeze out and take advantage of the artists they are claiming to fight so hard for.

Nobody cares that Gonzaga rose from No. 21 in the AP preseason ranking to No. 1 at regular season's end. Or that no player made a sensational case for player of the year.

One year it was between Adam Morrison and JJ Redick for Player of the Year. I think it's not so bad to have the Player of the Year award between guys like Cody Zeller, Ben McLemore, or Otto Porter. Again, I shouldn't expect much from Skip since we all know he started paying attention to college basketball five minutes before writing this column.

Nobody cares that no college player looks like a surefire NBA All-Star.

This is not really very relevant at all in terms of the excitement of the NCAA Tournament and I also think there is probably only 3-4 guys coming out of college every decade who are surefire NBA All-Stars. So it doesn't matter to me if college players don't look like surefire NBA All-Stars and Skip needs to go back to championing Tim Tebow for whatever he thinks Tebow can do successfully.

Or that UCLA, which had the No. 1 recruiting class, has only the No. 28 RPI (though freshman Shabazz Muhammad is finally starting to flash NBA talent).

This is not accurate. Muhammad has looked better towards the beginning of the season (in terms of statistics) than the end of the year. Either way, Muhammad has looked pretty good all year. I am not a huge fan of Muhammad, but he has flashed NBA talent pretty much all year.

For sure nobody cares I've slowly but surely become more of a fan of the NBA than college basketball -- which was all I was for a long time.

Yep, that's true. Nobody gives a shit if you like the NBA more than college basketball.

The first championship game I covered, in '79 in Salt Lake City, lifted the Final Four into Big Event status: Magic vs. Bird! I was there when a Carolina freshman named Michael Jordan beat Patrick Ewing's Georgetown … when Jim Valvano's NC State shocked Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler and Phi Slama Jama … when Villanova stunned Ewing's Georgetown … when Danny (Manning) and the Miracles, a No. 6 seed, upset Oklahoma.

Those were the nights, studded with stars bound for the NBA's Hall of Fame. At first it was Goliath vs. Goliath. Then David started beating Goliath. Now this year we could see another David vs. David, such as 2011's final pitting Connecticut (a No. 3 seed in the NCAA tournament but merely a No. 9 seed in the Big East tournament) versus Butler, a mid-major. Final score UConn, 53-41. Butler: 18.8 percent from the floor. Only one player from that game is starting in the NBA: Kemba Walker -- for Charlotte, the NBA's worst team.

So Skip just named almost a decade of NCAA Championship Games and then with a straight face tries to compare those players to those that played in the 2011 National Championship Game. His point stands, yes, college basketball is weaker in terms of how many college teams have a depth of star players (partly because of the NBA and the NBA's one-and-done rule), but it's not fair to compare a decade worth of games and say, "look at all those stars," while cherry-picking one game from less than two years ago as an example of what a crappy product college basketball is.

The Final Four as NBA showcase began to fade in 1995 when Kevin Garnett skipped college.

Yeah, well fuck you. I hate the idea college basketball is simply a showcase for the NBA. I know NBA fans feel that way, but it is not true. And yes, I know Skip is trolling by essentially calling college basketball's most popular weekend just a showcase for the NBA. The Final Four didn't start to fade in 1995 anyway. Skip is desperately trying to tie the one-and-done rule into college basketball's assumed demise.

Soon, Kobe and LeBron did, too.

Kobe went to the NBA the next year, but LeBron didn't go to the NBA "soon," after Kevin Garnett. He skipped college and went straight to the NBA eight years after Kevin Garnett did so. I do enjoy Skip's shameless attempt to blame/mention LeBron in this column one more time.

"College basketball is broken and it is LeBron James' fault! He was the problem and now he isn't working to find a solution!"

I can't wait for Skip to start screaming this argument.

Which is why many anti-NBA college fanatics I know or hear from via Twitter would just as soon have the best players leave college basketball alone and go straight to the pros. Give them J.J. Redick battling Adam Morrison for player of the year in 2006, Tyler Hansbrough dominating college basketball in '08 and '09, and Jimmer Fredette becoming the (Smiling) Face of College Basketball in '11. Never mind that none of those college idols went on to start, let alone star, in the NBA.

Which again, is irrelevant in terms of how exciting college basketball is. Kevin Durant also dominated college basketball for one year, Kyrie Irving played pretty well for one year, Tim Duncan, Blake Griffin, and Anthony Davis all dominated college basketball and then played well in the NBA. Any discussion of the NCAA Tournament or the Final Four should in no way be focused on how many of the players go from college and make a big impact in the NBA.

They don't care that college basketball belongs more to egomaniacal coaches, kings of their college-town kingdoms, and that the NBA is more of a players' game. 

We also don't care about you, Skip. Don't forget that. You are the rash on the ass of the sports world. Just because we scratch you from time-to-time doesn't mean we like having you around.

Or that the NBA's playoff format -- best of seven, 48 minutes per game with six fouls and a 3-point line 23 feet, 9 inches from the basket, a man's distance -- is the far more conclusive method of identifying the better team.

This is pretty much an opinion. I enjoy larger sample sizes, but I think there is something to be said for three weeks of win-or-go-home games as opposed to two months of playoff games. Skip is always trying to pass his opinion off as fact. Most of the players who play college basketball aren't men yet, so perhaps they don't shoot from "a man's distance" of 23 feet 9 inches for that reason.

I shudder every March when I absently flip from a routine NBA game to a March Madness barn burner. The drop-off in skill, strength and athleticism is stunning.

BREAKING NEWS: Professional athletes are better at their given sport when compared to amateurs.

I do get how Skip Bayless feels. It's much like when I am watching any other sports channel and I accidentally flip to ESPN and hear Skip talk on "First Take." The drop-off in knowledge, ability to persuade an audience, and not to be a trolling horse's ass is stunning as well. To think Skip has had other morons like Rob Parker to debate against and slowly numb the viewer to the stupidity being spewed blows my mind. Imagine if Skip's moronic talking points were surrounded by coherent and well-thought out arguments and reasoning? Then we could really see Skip for who he is, instead of having part of his stupidity masked by other stupidity.

Yet I must admit I rarely flip back to the NBA game.

Most likely because in that split second where the channel has changed and the television has gone to black Skip sees his own reflection in the television and he becomes distracted by how impressed with himself he is.

Every year I rail on "First Take" about how the NCAA gets away with awarding automatic bids to the winners of conference tournaments designed mostly to generate revenue. Hence, Liberty finished 6-10 in the (Not So) Big South, got hot, won its tournament and stole an NCAA bid from a far more deserving at-large "bubble" team from a power conference.

And every year no one at ESPN is smart enough to call Skip on this bullshit. Liberty didn't steal an NCAA bid from any other school in a power conference. The only way Liberty stole a bid from a bubble team is if there were another team in the Big South who would earn an NCAA bid regardless of whether they won the Big South Tournament. There wasn't. The Big South only was going to have one bid no matter who won the tourney, so Liberty never stole that bid from a more "deserving" team in the Big South. Liberty winning the Big South had no effect on the bubble teams because there was no team in the Big South outside of the automatic qualifying team who had earned an NCAA Tournament bid. What can I say? Thinking isn't Skip's thing.

This year's Madness will be madder than ever, for all the wrong reasons.

I have read this entire column and I am still not sure why the NCAA Tournament will be madder than ever for the wrong reasons. I am sure it is LeBron James fault.

Okay, well I am back to ignoring Skip Bayless and taking away the relevancy he so desperately craves.