10 comments The Top 219 Reasons Bleacher Report Getting Credit for Being a Quality Site is the End of the World

I noticed in the "Time" magazine I received in the mail last week, and Ivn pointed out in the comments, that "Time" has named Bleacher Report one of the Top 50 best websites of 2011. This goes to prove "Time" just randomly picks sites and doesn't actually look at the content on said sites. Here's what they had to say about the site that is the biggest joke among sports websites.

(I was going to write about something different today, but I started a rant about Bleacher Report before I wrote that previous post and then I found a terrible article to cover while I was ranting.)

At Bleacher Report, the sports reporting isn't performed by a tiny staff of full-time journalists — it's done by thousands of fan-contributors, which is why it feels so deep and so passionate.

That's also why Bleacher Report articles feel so factually inaccurate, terribly researched, thrown-together, half-assed, overly-long, amateurish, and annoyingly fluff-based.

The standard of quality is markedly higher than at some community-created news hubs, where "citizen journalist" can be a synonym for "poorly paid amateur."

Holy shit. I feel like every compliment towards Bleacher Report should be a criticism of Bleacher Report. Then the brainless wonders at Bleacher Report name SB Nation as one of the 50 best sites and compares it to Bleacher Report. They are similar, except many SB Nation writers have actual writing skill that exceeds the ability to put a list together and use Wikipedia, both of which are the only two requirements it seems for Bleacher Report writers.

Like a sports-themed variant of the Huffington Post, the site has a penchant for wacky lists and sideshows.

They are wacky lists and sideshows because they are shit and drivel. The Huffington Post should sue "Time" for this statement in comparing them to Bleacher Report.

Many of them, like "50 Bold Predictions for the Rest of the MLB Season," are nicely done, not just fluffy filler.

Out of the 3500 posts and lists put up per day, I am sure 10-12 of them are not complete shit. Right now, on the front page are the following "columns..."

"The Biggest Phonies in NFL History."

"5 Teams Terrelle Pryor Could Start For Right Now."

"35 Most-Played out Sports Expressions."

Don't give me this crap about it being a quality shit. It is a group of lists thrown together that have very little factual basis and are purely opinion-based statements that are many times poorly researched.

This article was written before the supplemental draft today. I know you are dying to know which 5 teams (plus the Raiders! The team that actually drafted him) Terrelle Pryor could start for right now. I wasn't going to link the article, which was clearly written just to draw negative attention, but here are the list of teams...

and here is the link. (begrudingly I give it)

Buffalo, Washington, Miami, Seattle, San Francisco, and Oakland.

Now that I have spoiled the ending let's see WHY Terrelle Pryor, who was a 3rd round supplemental pick, is better than the starter for 6 NFL teams right now.

There are a few teams that are pretty excited that Terrelle Pryor has been cleared to enter into the NFL supplemental draft.

I am sure a lot of teams are excited to get a chance to draft a physically developmental quarterback with a late round pick. I have a feeling they aren't as excited at the thought of him being their starter this year.

It’s interesting to note that it seems as if the NFL will honor the NCAA’s original decision with Pryor, and he will be suspended for the first five games of the season once he signs a contract.

Oh no! What NFL team will have to do without their 3^rd string quarterback for the first 5 weeks?

Let me be clear. This article/slideshow is stupid for two reasons.

1. Terrelle Pryor is a developmental quarterback. There isn’t an NFL team he is ready to step in and be the starter for. Of course, this is my opinion, so feel free to disagree.

2. What isn’t my opinion is that even if Terrelle Pryor could step in and be the starter for an NFL team, how the hell he is going to do this as a rookie AND as a quarterback who only has the playbook for a few weeks? That’s some serious studying and moving up the depth chart in a short period of time. So he couldn’t start for any NFL team right now because he doesn’t know the playbook. Of course with any Bleacher Report article you have to understand this isn’t a fact-based slideshow, but merely the incoherent ramblings of a person who has done 15 minutes of research without actually thinking in-depth about the details of what he/she is writing about.

The truth of the matter is that once Pryor rides out his suspension, he will be a viable starting option for a team desperate for quarterback help.

So we are assuming Pryor will have a 5 game suspension? I guess I don’t understand the definition of “right now.” I’ve always thought it meant “right now” as in “right this very fucking minute.” Apparently the new definition is “sometime in the future.”

If it weren’t for the suspension, I think these teams would be lining up to draft him as their starter right now.

Really? If it weren’t for the 5 game short-term suspension, teams would be lining up to draft a quarterback who could be their starter for the next 10 years? So I am to be convinced an NFL team would not draft a guy who could start THIS VERY YEAR AND IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE because of a potential 5 game suspension?

Does the author ever watch the NFL? Teams will draft a quarterback in the 1^st round and sit him for an entire year before playing that quarterback. Yet the author wants me to believe a team wouldn’t draft a quarterback even with a 3rd round pick and sit that quarterback for 5 games? Bullshit. This is partly why Bleacher Report has no business on any list naming the best websites on the Interwebs.

Buffalo Bills

Is anybody really that comfortable with the Bills' quarterback situation?

Yes, I am comfortable with the Bills’ quarterback situation in the short term. There are plenty of quality QB’s coming out of college next year. Ryan Fitzpatrick threw for 3000 yards, 57.8% completion percentage, 23 TD’s and 15 INT’s last year. Terrelle Pryor would never put up similar numbers unless the NFL played a 24 game schedule this year.

In the long term, I am not happy with the Bills situation, but in the short term, Terrelle Pryor isn't the Bills answer any more than Ryan Fitzpatrick is.

While Ryan Fitzpatrick isn't horrible, I wouldn't count on him to be a winning quarterback.

Which could be partially because he is an average quarterback on a terrible team. Put Peyton Manning on the Bills and he isn’t a winning quarterback.

The Bills need some excitement and playmaking ability around their team,

No, they need talent at several positions on the roster and a quarterback who has talent and is a leader. Excitement doesn’t mean much without actual talent.

Pryor would be an instant shot in the arm for the organization, and would make 2011 intriguing for Buffalo at the very least.

If Pryor started for the Bills this year practices would be very interesting. Games would be horrific and probably chase away the remaining Buffalo Bills fans. Anyone who suggests Pryor is an upgrade in the short-term over Ryan Fitzpatrick needs their head examined.

Seattle Seahawks

I think Seattle has what it takes to be a playoff team.

What a bold prediction! It's almost like the Seahawks didn't make the playoffs last year.

This statement doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot considering the Seahawks play in a weak division and made the playoffs last year…and won game in the playoffs.

I think the Colts will contend for a playoff spot this year. How’s that for bold?

That being said, i'm not sure if Tarvaris Jackson can really be the guy to lead them to the Promised Land

So the Seahawks have what it takes to be a playoff team, except they don’t. Also, we capitalize “I’m” in a sentence. Give a rousing cheer for Bleacher Report’s editing department everyone! Remember it’s a Top 50 website according to "Time" magazine.

Terrelle Pryor is a step up from Jackson.

Terrelle Pryor is NOT a step up from Jackson in the short term. There I fixed this sentence.

The mediocrity of Tarvaris Jackson doesn’t mean Terrelle Pryor would be any less mediocre.

They are similar in playing style, but he is just a better version of Jackson.

Translation: They are both African-American quarterbacks, but Terrelle Pryor is younger.

Not to knock Terrelle Pryor, but he isn’t ready to start in the NFL right now. Few rookies are and I haven’t seen anything at Ohio State that says Pryor could run an NFL offense right now. To indicate Pryor could run an NFL offense shows a poor grasp of how complicated an NFL offense is. There are questions whether any of the 1^st round picks this year could handle their team’s offense as a starter this year and many of them have had the playbook since early May, much less have only had the playbook for two months like Pryor would if he started the sixth game after five games of being suspended this year.

Miami Dolphins

Chad Henne looks like he forgot how to play the position, and Matt Moore looks like he's in way over his head any time he steps out onto the field.

Matt Moore hadn’t stepped on the field since being injured early last season until the first preseason game with the Dolphins when he went 11 for 18 with two touchdowns and an interception against the Falcons. Apparently that is him “way over his head.” I bet some teams wish they had a backup who was as over his head as Moore showed he was in that game. Also, Henne looked great against Carolina on Friday night. Of course, I realize it was against Carolina.

At least with Pryor the Dolphins would regain back some of that swagger they have been missing.

Swagger is important. We all know under the new CBA that NFL teams don’t win games solely based on how many points they score in a game versus how many they give up, but also based on the Swagger Quotient. A team can be awarded a Swagger Quotient during the game on a scale of 0-1.

For example, if the Dolphins scored 20 points in their first preseason game with Henne and Moore at quarterback that is only a Swagger Quotient of .316, which means they only really earned 6.32 points. While if they had scored 20 points with Terrelle Pryor and Chad Henne their Swagger Quotient would have skyrocketed to .569, which meant they actually scored 11.38 points. That's why swagger is important.

They would also be getting a quarterback with as much talent as both of their current options combined.

This guy has a very high opinion of Terrelle Pryor doesn’t he? Sort of delusional opinions in my opinion. Of course anyone who thinks Terrelle Pryor could be drafted by a team and then start 5 weeks later by earning the starting quarterback job already has some delusions even the most advanced scientific breakthroughs probably couldn’t cure.

Washington Redskins

I could see Pryor fit in with the Redskins. Of course he couldn’t start for them right now, but since when has a Bleacher Report title 100% accurately depicted the content within the article/slideshow?

That's kind of like choosing between broccoli or cauliflower for a four-year-old.

KIDS HATE VEGETABLES! We can’t say we didn’t learn something from this article/slideshow.

The Redskins are looking for a spark on offense and Pryor would be a perfect fit now and into the future.

Pryor isn’t a starter in the NFL right now. I am not sure even the most ardent Ohio State fan would disagree with me.

San Francisco 49ers

Alex Smith is not a legitimate option for the 49ers moving into the future, and it's about time their coach and fans realized that.

Yeah! Jim Harbaugh and the front office of the 49ers better understand Alex Smith isn’t a viable option in the future and you need to provide him competition…like the quarterback the 49ers drafted in the 2^nd round in this last draft. Why don’t you go draft a quarterback early in the draft…like you did in this year’s draft. You shouldn’t continue relying on Smith, you have to make a decision to choose another quarterback…like you did this year in the 2011 NFL Draft. Harbaugh should have gotten a quarterback he could develop and would fit the offense he wants to run…which is why he drafted Colin Kaepernick.

While Colin Kaepernick does show some potential, I feel Pryor would be able to come in and produce right away for the 49ers.

It’s official. The author of this article/slideshow is the only person in the world who thinks Colin Kaepernick is a developmental starter, while Terrelle Pryor is ready to start from Day 1 in the NFL. What kind of drugs cause a person to believe Terrelle Pryor is ready to start in the NFL right now?

So the author complains the 49ers need to move on from Alex Smith, which is what they did by drafting Kaepernick, then says Kaepernick shows “potential” which I am not sure what that means, but he thinks Terrelle Pryor is ready to start and apparently Kaepernick doesn't show enough potential to wait on this potential for a season or so, while Pryor is not developmental at all in the author's opinion. This is despite the fact if you asked 100 NFL scouts to describe Pryor, at least 50% of them would use some derivation of the word “developmental” or “long-term” to describe when he will become a great NFL quarterback…if he ever does.

In fact, he is the better long-term option as well.

I’m starting to believe this column has been written solely to get a reaction. I, of course, am always willing to react.

Oakland Raiders

Don't take this the wrong way, but Pryor fits the Raiders mold as far as personality and swagger is concerned.

(whispers) "He's black and athletic. The Raiders like that type of thing."

There is that "swagger" word again.

He is also a perfect fit on the field

You mean the Raiders will base the evaluation of Pryor's skill solely on his athletic potential and not whether he will be a good NFL player or actually has the talent currently to be a good NFL player?

I kid of course. The Raiders have drafted fairly well recently. Maybe the pick of Pryor will pay off in the near future, but not "right now," meaning this very season.

I think Al Davis would actually prefer to see Pryor at the helm instead of Jason Campbell or Kyle Boller.

And because Al Davis wants it, then that means it is clearly the best possible decision for the future of the Oakland Raiders. As the drafting of JaMarcus Russell and pretty much the entire way the Raiders organization is run by Davis will attest to.

No matter if Al Davis wants to see Pryor quarterbacking his team or not, it doesn't mean it is the best move for the Raiders, nor does it mean Pryor is ready to run the team.

Raider nation would accept him even with his streaky past

I think it is fair to say if a quarterback gets drafted and then immediately steps in as a quality starter for a team then that fan base will accept that quarterback no matter his past.

and I think he would actually blossom into a solid NFL quarterback in Oakland.

He would “blossom” into a solid NFL quarterback? What about him being the starter for Oakland “right now?” There’s no blossoming allowed if he is going to be the starter from Game 6 of the season. See, if you write an article saying a quarterback coming out of college could start for an NFL team “right now,” then that quarterback should have blossomed enough already to be the best quarterback on the roster.

As usual with Bleacher Report, there’s a disconnect between the title of an article/slideshow and the actual content contained within. If you write an article saying a quarterback can start for 6 NFL teams you better understand there isn’t a hell of a lot of room for blossoming. He’s got to start “right now” for those teams. “Right now” indicates the present, at least in the English language that I use to communicate.

Terrelle Pryor could be an NFL starter at some point in his career, but he isn’t ready to start in the immediate future. Come on, get real.

Bleacher Report is one of the Top 50 sites of any type on the Internet. “Time” needs to do better research and actually read the sites they promote.

4 comments Hey Tim Keown, That's a Great Idea! How About They Don't Do That?

I have started a Yahoo Bottom of the Barrel fantasy baseball league for anyone who wants to join up. The league id is "36835" and the password is "eckstein." It is open to anyone who wants to join, as long as you are an active manager and keep up with your team. I don't want anyone to quit halfway through they year and not keep up with their team.

Tim Keown has an idea about where head coaches should sit during a game. Is this "bad idea week" or something? I don't want to crap on all ideas, but his idea just doesn't seem to make logistical sense. So I am going to take a huge metaphorical crap all over Tim's idea and not feel remorse about doing so.

Back in 2008, when Joe Paterno was coaching from the booth above the field because of health concerns, it was widely considered a hindrance to his game-day coaching.

You could probably see why it was a hindrance to his game-day coaching if you look to the right of this passage. There is a picture of Paterno with his hand on his face looking very, very bored. Paterno clearly isn't engaged in the game. Much like how I have felt when reading Bill Simmons' latest column.

(Am I the only one who has noticed Simmons' columns are straight out boring now? I just can't slog through them anymore. When he has a mailbag, then I can pay some attention, but otherwise I struggle.)

He was removed from the grit and sweat of the sidelines, unable to feel and hear his players as they worked. The booth was at an antiseptic remove, far above the real battle.

It is difficult to be a head coach and not be down on the field with your players. That's the bottom line. If a head coach is in the booth upstairs he can't talk to the officials and he can't throw a challenge flag...though I would like to see a challenge flag thrown from the booth upstairs. I can imagine the fans ducking as a red flag comes down from on-high.

I don't believe being removed from the grit and sweat of the sidelines is a good idea.

The booth, he said, provided a better location for the "technical analysis" of the game.

I'm going to refrain from "Joe Paterno is old" jokes, but does anyone really believe he is doing the actual coaching of the Penn State team? He can afford to be up in the booth because he is much like a offensive/defensive coordinator right now in that he has others on the team doing the coaching so he can worry about the "technical analysis." Basically, if Tim Keown is advocating head coaches sit in the booth then he possibly chose the worst possible head coach to use as an example of why this is a good idea. Paterno really isn't a "head coach" in the way the term is used for a guy like Bob Stoops, Mark Richt, or most other NFL/college head coaches.

To which the question needs to be asked: Is there another human endeavor that has become defined by "technical analysis" more than football coaching?

The definition of technical analysis is as follows:

"In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis discipline for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume."

So there is no other human endeavor that has become defined by "technical analysis" other than the very profession (finance) the term was created for. Yes, there is some technical analysis involved in football, but I would argue in the realm of sports that baseball has more technical analysis. If I said this to Tim Keown, he would frown at me, clearly unimpressed.

In the NFL, especially, coaches are asked to make instant technical analysis of what they see. They have help, but in the end it's their reputations -- and their jobs -- on the line. By definition, NFL head coaches should be the best minds the franchise has to offer. So why aren't they positioned to benefit from the best vantage point the game has to offer?

Why aren't they positioned in a blimp hovering above the stadium? It's an even better vantage point than being in the press box, plus it is very intimidating for a visiting team to see a blimp hovering above them. Being a head coach isn't just about having the best vantage point on the field.

The reason coaches aren't positioned in the press box is because they need to be in constant contact with their team and they often are the ones making the important calls on the field. They are generally not the ones calling the plays and doing the technical analysis. The offensive and defensive coordinators are responsible for calling plays and making adjustments based on the technical analysis. Obviously at halftime there are adjustments made and the head coach even makes suggestions during the game. The head coach is an overseer on the sidelines and needs to be there to talk to his players and oversee the game from the vantage point where he can make a difference, which is near the officials and his own players.

Say a fumble is ruled on a play and the running back for that team swears his knee was down. He goes running to the sidelines and pleads for the call to be challenged. So who sends word up to the coach? Possibly the person in charge of operations on the field, which used to be the head coach. So this person calls upstairs to the head coach telling him the running back thinks he didn't fumble the ball and then the head coach makes the call (while looking at the replay? Otherwise there's another step in having to radio someone else to look at the replay) on whether to challenge or not and then radios down to the field to throw the red flag. It just seems a lot harder than the running back telling the coach who radios up whether he should challenge the call or not.

I am assuming the offensive and defensive coordinators are also in a box above the field as well, so the team is essentially run by assistant or position coaches. This should be the head coach's job. Being the "man behind the curtain" running a football team isn't a great idea for team morale. We've all seen coaches meet their players coming off the field and celebrating a great play with them. Not to be cheesy, but that probably means more to the player than having the coach call them on the sideline phone and congratulate them.

Another issue lies in the fact Tim Keown says the head coach needs to do "technical analysis" during the game. This really isn't true. Prior to the game and at halftime the head coach will be deeply involved with the technical aspects of a game, but unless he is calling the plays, I would think he leaves that part of the game up to his offensive/defensive coordinator.

By far the best place to watch -- the place that provides the best of all possible angles for technical analysis -- is the press box, with the combination of the aerial view and the access to network television replays.

But again, a head coach needs to be with his players as well. Talking to the officials, celebrating plays with his team, and micromanaging what happens on the field. I don't know why Tim is stuck on the idea of technical analysis being more important than player interaction and controlling what happens on the field by actually being on the field.

There's a reason radio and TV announcers sit up high, and there's also a reason sideline reporters add very little to your understanding of what happens on the field.

Worst. Comparison. Ever. This isn't even relevant to the discussion, so I won't make it relevant by attempting to discuss it.

There is also a reason announcers are up high and the sideline reporters are on the field. One group has no interaction with the players (the announcers) and the other has to speak to the players (sideline reporters). Call me crazy, but I think speaking face-to-face with players during a game is an important part of being a head coach.

If I were an NFL head coach, I'd want to sit up there. If I were an NFL owner or general manager, I would suggest -- or at least raise the possibility -- of my head coach sitting in a booth, where the offensive coordinator generally sits.

Then most likely you would be terrible at being a General Manager and an owner. Can you imagine the manager of a baseball team or the head coach of an NBA team being above the field so he can technically analyze the game? He's the head coach. The analysis is done, now it is a matter of making sure the players execute the gameplan. What better place to do this than to be on the field with the players?

There are two aspects of coaching that are botched more than any others: (1) clock management,

This has nothing to do with where the head coach sits. Either way he can see how much time is left in the game or on the play clock very easily. Poor time management has no good vantage point. Coaches either tend to get how to manage the game clock or they don't.

and (2) replay decisions. In many cases, a mistake with a replay decision can have a significant effect on a coach's ability to manage the clock.

So the head coach would move to the box, be in charge of the technical aspects of the game and also be in charge of watching a replay over and over to ensure he wants to challenge the call? I think this decision should be delegated to someone else.

The booth would create a level of emotional distance that would undoubtedly help a coach manage the clock.

What the hell does managing the clock have to do with being overly or under-emotional during a game? A head coach either manages the clock well or he doesn't. It goes to his poise and decision-making under pressure, which provided he is an NFL head coach, should be pretty damn good.

Also, this emotional distance which would "help" the coach manage the clock will also create an emotional distance from his players. I just don't think this is a good idea. Not to mention the head coach would be removed from his players in order to be able to challenge 1-2 calls per game better. It doesn't seem worth it to move the head coach simply for this.

It seems impossible that someone like Colts coach Jim Caldwell would be as bad at clock management if he were able to see the game from a safe remove.

You would think it would be impossible, but Jim Caldwell's consistent poor head coaching and time management makes the impossible become possible. Does Tim Keown really expect me to believe if Jim Caldwell is in a booth over the field he will all of a sudden be able to manage the clock better because he is higher up in the air? This is lunacy.

It's hard to understand when you're watching on television, but a coach standing on the field doesn't always have the same relationship with the clock as a guy sitting on his couch.

So Jim Caldwell will be at home coaching from his couch then? Maybe I don't understand (and this is Tim Keown's way of saying "I am a sportswriter who has access to different vantage points on the field), but I do know the scoreboard is the same size no matter where the coach is sitting and he can manage the clock and see the scoreboard well enough while standing on the field.

It's not as prominent in real life, on the sideline, as it is to the viewer who watches it ticking down on his television screen. In the booth, that would change.

So what's the head coach going to do when he sees the play clock running down? Call down to the field and tell someone to call timeout? Isn't this a waste of precious seconds? It would take at a minimum 2-3 seconds for the coach to tell an assistant to call timeout and for the assistant to tell the official this.

Also, when it comes to crucial fourth down calls and the decision to punt, go for it, or kick a field goal having the coach in the box would burn crucial seconds radioing his decision down rather than having him wave the correct unit on or off the field.

The benefit for replay is self-evident. Broadcasters and viewers know better than coaches when a challenge should be made, and when it will be successful.

Which is why each generally has a person in charge of determining what plays should be reviewed and which should not. The head coach should not have to be the one who views replays because he has a lot of other stuff going on, like clock management and actually coaching the team during a game.

As it stands now, there are assistants in the booth above relaying the information to the head coach; on questionable calls, such as Mike McCarthy's decision on whether to challenge Brett Swain's near-catch, it's not hard to imagine the guy up above saying, "You could challenge it -- your call."

It's not hard to imagine Tim Keown making up a conversation as evidence to support his point of view. It is less hard to imagine the person in the booth not giving the coach a definitive answer "yes" or "no" whether to challenge the call. I really, really, really doubt the assistant coach would say "You could challenge it--your call," without giving any other type of opinion to the head coach, knowing the head coach couldn't see the replay.

No matter how the suggestions are sent down through the headset, the head coach is the guy shouldering the blame/credit.

The coach shoulders the blame/credit for nearly every single decision on the football field, it doesn't mean he should be involved first-hand in every single decision. He has to delegate at some point. I don't think the value of seeing 1-2 replays a game is worth not being on the field with his players. I would think, and do think based on the fact no head coach other than Paterno have sat in a booth above the field, is college and NFL head coaches (as well as NFL owners) would agree with me.

There are benefits to being on the sideline. It's hard to motivate from a luxury box, obviously, and conversing with officials is no longer an option.

Removing the head coach from the sidelines takes him from an active part during the game to being a more passive voice during the game. I don't think this is a good idea at all.

There are also times when a head coach doesn't want to wait for halftime to discipline/calm/inspire in a man-to-man, face-to-face, eye-to-eye way. Beyond that, the sideline might be the absolute worst place to watch a game if your job description includes "technical analysis."

Beyond a couple of the most important parts of his job in-game, there are no reasons a head coach should be on the sidelines, when he could be upstairs doing "technical analysis" which isn't really a huge part of his in-game job description? So the part of his job that isn't really a major part is more important than the most important parts of his job so the coach can (arguably) have a better vantage point for time management? Even if I could accept the head coach has a better vantage point to see the game clock in a booth, I still fail to see how this would make the coach better at time management during a game.

If it was a good place to watch a game, they wouldn't need the headset.

The coach would still need a headset in the booth or some other way to communicate with his players. So if the booth upstairs was such a great place to watch a game then he wouldn't need a headset there either.

Then Tim Keown starts talking about the Ohio State basketball team for some reason.

It's the opinion here that Ohio State is the most complete college basketball team since the 2001 Jay Williams-Shane Battier-Mike Dunleavy-Carlos Boozer-Chris Duhon Duke team.

Not sure about that. Ohio State is the most complete team since the 2008-2009 North Carolina Tar Heels team. Ohio State is good, but I think the 2008-2009 North Carolina Tar Heels team would probably beat them. That team was so good there were rumors Roy Williams intentionally didn't play Ed Davis major minutes (he only played 18.8 minutes per game) because he knew he could win a National Championship and keep Davis at UNC for two years instead of having him be a one-and-done.

Obviously that is speculation, but that team missed Tyler Zeller and Marcus Ginyard for portions of that year and still went 34-4. That would be a high quality freshman center and their best defensive player they were missing for large portions of the year and they still went 34-4. They obliterated their competition in the NCAA Tournament, never winning by any less than 12 points and won the National Championship by destroying the Michigan State Spartans in the first five minutes of the game.

UNC had three players shoot over 40% from 3-point range, no starter shot under 47% from the field and their second-best rebounder (Ed Davis) only could manage 18.8 minutes per game. Imagine what he would have done if they actually needed him for more minutes than that. That is what made them so great in my mind, they could win a National Championship without players other teams would have found to be completely necessary. It's just my opinion.

In the current college climate, with even the best teams fortunate to have two big-time players and a sufficient supporting cast, the Buckeyes are a rare collection. They don't have any glaring weaknesses.

Other than they were 161st (210th now) in the country in rebounding when I wrote this post, that's true. Also, Ohio State has no depth among their big men. After Lauderdale and Sullinger, their third tallest player is a perimeter-oriented guy in Jon Diebler. So while Jared Sullinger has been able to hold down the post very effectively so far, what happens when Ohio State runs into a team that can rebound well? There is a lot of talk about how good the Buckeyes are, and I have no doubt they are very good, but they can not matchup inside with teams like Kansas or any other team that can rebound well.

I wrote this post when Tim Keown originally wrote this column and just had not posted it yet. In that time, Ohio State has lost two games to Purdue and Wisconsin. A team that can't rebound well usually does not succeed in the NCAA Tournament. Depth isn't a huge issue sometimes for teams, but it is the type of depth they have and Ohio State doesn't have tall depth. They are a great team, but comparing them to a team from 10 years ago is overstating how good the Buckeyes are. This is typical over-reacting on the part of a sportswriter to a team being undefeated.

I think Ohio State has a chance to make the Final Four and I think they could go undefeated until then, but a team that wins the National Championship has to be able to rebound in the NCAA Tournament and if Sullinger gets in foul trouble, which hasn't happened a whole lot, then teams can expose them underneath the basket.

And, obviously, Jared Sullinger is exactly the type of player who leads teams to titles.

Absolutely and they are led by a bunch of seniors who have experience in the NCAA Tournament, so they are a great team. Still, I don't think we should have to go back to 2001 to compare another team to them. The Buckeyes have a freshman point guard and they just don't have a lot of depth, which is something that needs to be taken into account when determining their future prospects as well.

But there's something else about this team that separates it from just about everybody else: They play the kind of physical game -- especially Dallas Lauderdale and Sullinger -- that referees allow.

Right, they do play physical, but they don't rebound well as a team. I don't know if the fact the referees accept their way of playing basketball makes them any more likely to win the National Championship. There are other teams that play a physical kind of offense and defense too. I am not denying the Buckeyes are good, but Tim Keown wants to make them historically good and I don't know if that is true.

Don't discount this as a huge factor in the tournament. The Buckeyes have established this tough, physical style as their brand of play throughout the regular season, and their consistency will give them the benefit of the doubt in March.

The problem is officials in the NCAA Tournament aren't just Big 10 officials and will (hopefully) be calling a consistent game. This means while the Buckeyes are physical, the other team will be allowed to be physical as well. I don't know what the "benefit of the doubt" means really, but I can assume it means the officials will allow the Buckeyes to be physical with the other team, but I would hope the calls go both ways. Ohio State is great, but it's insane to look back at the 2001 National Champions for a more "complete" team when depth and rebounding are two big concerns for them.

5 comments Why Isn't It The Top 30?

First, a note of business. For those of you that have subscribed to Bottom of the Barrel by email (the link to do so is on the right side of the page), you may have noticed that it stopped working. Well, have no fear. I have resolved the issue. However, you will not receive email updates on every post until you resubscribe. I apologize for the inconvenience.

For those of you who have not subscribed via email, let me be the first to tell you that you are missing out. I, like most people, am lazy. So lazy that sometimes I ignore my favorite blogs only because I do not feel like visiting 10 different web pages every time I go on the computer. ESPN.com, CNN.com and Gmail are more than I can handle. If you suffer from any of the above symptoms, email is the cure.

Bengoodfella's post on Sunday (on rushing the court) left me with unreconciled thoughts. On the one hand, excessive court-rushing defeats its purpose: to celebrate an unusual event. On the other, I understand the impetus as a student. It's not as if each school is rushes the court with each victory. As outside observers, it seems like a daily occurrence. In reality, most students won't have the honor more than 2 or 3 times during their college careers.

Although a team may not have suffered historically, the majority of fans are college students who only recently became fans. Part of me wants them to have their glory. College is a time for creating the "remember when we" stories. If you take away the court rushing, you take away the passion of the game. And let's be honest: the reason why we love college basketball is not for it's skill. It's something more. Every player cares. Every coach cares. Every fan cares. Hoards of business men do not fill the seats. Without the obscene chants, heavy drinking and absurd intensity, the college game loses its distinct flavor.

But then I wavered again. I am Wisconsin fan (my brother is an alumnus) and, based on this weekend's events, a proud one. But even I admit that defeating Ohio State for the umpteenth time at the Kohl Center did not constitute an overly impressive achievement. This was no Patriots/Rams Super Bowl upset. It was more like Steelers/Seahawks. But the biased judgments of the ranking system clouded our view of the game. #1 vs. #14. A big difference, it seems. But is it really? Realistically, the polls serve no purpose. They are a small and insignificant factor in determining the participants in the NCAA tournament.

The top 25 is a fabled group with extreme exclusivity. Teams 26-30, just on the edge, receive zero recognition. And with no public visibility comes no buzz. No buzz, no discussion. No discussion, decreased chances of making the tournament. Despite the selection committee's every attempt to neglect media influence, it will always play a role. Even the top 25 polls, as determined at the beginning of the season, are in itself flawed. From year to year, college teams change personnel at a rate only matched by the NFL. To arbitrarily create rankings that significantly sway opinion and discussion is to do a disservice to the game of college basketball.

If you're outside that top 25, it's like you do not exist. I'm not just talking about the top 25 bubble teams. Think about teams in the 50-60 range. Although RPI supposedly fills this void, it falls into the trap of the BCS. There must be some human element. When 25 teams have a number stamped onto the beginning of their abbreviation, they automatically achieve a subconsciously elevated level.

Imagine if we applied the NCAA rules to the NFL (I chose the NFL, and not the NBA, because of the similar player turnover and change in power teams). A team like Kansas City, with a presumably poor preseason ranking, would have missed the playoffs. The Tampa Bay Buccanneers, only eliminated by a mathematical difference, would not have even entered the conversation. In short, preseason rankings would seem arbitrary, cruel and not conducive to equality. The NFL possesses too much year-to-year parity for such a system to legitimately function.

Every year college basketball experts weigh different factors to determine a tourney field, one of which is record against the top 25. Yet the top 25 is an ever-changing range. A win against a hot team that fizzles out towards the end of the season loses weight. The only honest judgment stems from assessing a certain team at a certain time, not how it finished the season. Overall record is only an average of past events. To ignore contemporary circumstances is to ignore the true impact of a win or loss.

I understand why we rank teams. It makes life easier. We have an inherent need to compare. LeBron or Kobe? Manning or Brady? These are everlasting questions that will never settle on an answer. For the sake of college basketball, I have one request. Rank every team, or rank no one. When an unranked team defeats a ranked one, we label it as an upset. But what if the #26 team #24? Or even #35 over #20? Are these monumental defeats?

Let's go back to the Wisconsin/Ohio State game. Ohio State was undefeated, and Wisconsin was a 5 loss team. Ohio State was ranked #1. Wisconsin was ranked #14. By the end of the season, this one win will not make or break Wisconsin's season. But what if the #151 team defeats the #40 team? As of now, it's no biggie. Neither has a number next to their name. But that second game will impact the 151st ranked team in a much more significant manner.

Realistically, it's nearly impossible to rank all 300-some-odd NCAA Men's Basketball teams. There are too many to track. Too many conferences, too many players. So I say just get rid of the damn thing #26 deserves as much recognition as #25.