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.
Showing posts with label UNC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UNC. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
16 comments Three Things For Tuesday
I haven't done a three-for-one special in one day in a while, so I thought I would go ahead do one of those today. These articles didn't deserve one entire long, encyclopediac post so I thought I would wrap them into one neat little package of one post for the day.
1. Today I start it all off with Roy Williams (the UNC Tar Heels coach, not the wide receiver or the safety who play and semi-underachieve in the NFL) and his need to show the world what an asshole he can be. For just one minute he dropped his "aw shucks" demeanor and turned into the world class assassin and recruiter we know he really can be. Basically, he kicked a Presbyterian College fan out of a UNC Tar Heels basketball game because they heckled one of his players. How dare an opposing fan dare to cheer against the Tar Heels in the Dean Dome!
During the post-game press conference, Williams puts on his best shit-kicker car salesman smile and explains to reporters that he had the fan removed because he doesn't think that "anybody should yell anything negative at our players. Period."
Especially a fan of the opposing team who had the audacity to purchase a ticket in the crypt, I mean arena, that is the Dean Dome. How dare a Presbyterian College fan yell during free throw attempts! Doesn't this unruly person know that if he screams too loud he might wake up the wealthy UNC boosters who are trying to take a nap during the game? And what's with the yelling anyway, it's a basketball game, not a football game. Silence is appreciated in the Dean Dome at all times.
Here's a quick thought: You are the head coach of an NCAA basketball team. You are at home in a game against an opponent who is about as strong as an above average high school team. If you are able to hear one person in the crowd yelling against your team during the game then perhaps your home crowd should get a little bit more pumped up and make some noise. Shouldn't the home crowd be loud enough to where hecklers for the other team can't be heard? It's not this fan's fault he was cheering for Presbyterian College and no one was making noise when he yelled something non-abrasive. If the arena isn't loud enough, don't blame the heckler, blame the extremely quiet crowd that can't seem to get into the game sufficiently, no matter what the score of the game is or how many national championships the school has won.
One reporter continued to probe about what the fan said — "was it vulgar?" — but Roy just summarily disposed of the question and threatened to end the presser if there were anymore questions about it.
We all know my feelings towards UNC, but I like Roy Williams. He is a good, clean coach who recruits better than pretty much any modern day coach and generally seems like a good guy. He was nice to my fiance at a golf tournament a few years ago, so I won't burn his image in effigy. What irritates me though is that the media fails to see what a cutthroat asshole Roy Williams really can be. Coach K of Duke is seen as a guy who manipulates referees, curses too much and is just an overall evil guy. Mostly he is seen this way by opposing teams. Gary Williams is the guy who sweats a lot and can't recruit against teams like Georgetown and the rest of the Big East (not true) so he gets whoever he can for his team and works his magic. Sidney Lowe is the lazy head coach of the NC State Wolfpack who can't seem to recruit a team that plays together well, which is moderately true. Roy Williams is the nice guy coach who yells at his players just to make them better, is a marketer's dream come true because he is wholesome as white bread, and just wants to see his team succeed.
Outside of Sidney Lowe, Gary Williams and Coach K are seen as guys who are fairly cutthroat, but no one ever sees Roy Williams that way. This isn't true at all though. He can be a jerk and he does the "indignant anger" thing better than any other NCAA coach. This incident goes to show this. Roy Williams is clearly in the wrong, he basically kicked this person out of the game for not cheering for UNC which is (a) a very dictator-esque sort of thing to do and (b) incredibly rude to do to a person who was not unruly and had actually paid to watch the game. If this fan doesn't want to cheer for UNC, it's his seat and money, he doesn't have to.
Then to make matters worse, Roy Williams refuses to acknowledge he overreacted, acts like a 5 year old when he is even questioned about his actions and threatens to cancel the press conference if he is asked the question again. You know what? It's Roy's right to do that because he is the head coach, but this just goes to show me Roy Williams is a master at putting up a facade of genial kindness and will do anything to show he is in control of his program, including taking a "my way or the highway" approach to second guessing him. Roy has a temper and has a real problem with controlling it, yet we still see him as a gentle kind guy. We've seen him lose his temper before on national television.
Think about Bonnie Bernstein asking Roy Williams about the open UNC job after his Kansas team lost to Syracuse in the 2003 National Title game. He cursed at her and told her he didn't give a damn about that (the UNC) job, he was worried about his guys in the locker room. He acknowledged it wasn't her asking the question, but knew it was the guys in the control booth who wanted it asked, but he did take his anger out on her. Of course a few weeks later, the job he didn't give a damn about ended up being his new job and he has been quite successful at it. Roy Williams is not a bad guy, but he is just like every other coach of a great and successful NCAA basketball team and can be a real jerk. Sometimes the media forgets that.
Before I get done rambling about this, imagine if Coach K, Jim Calhoun or Bob Knight had done this. People would flip out about it. We would never hear the end of this story, but Roy is seen as a nice guy so even someone who follows NCAA basketball fairly closely like me only hears about this incident a couple days after it happens.
Let's see what horrible thing the fan said that drew the ire of Roy Williams:
According to one reader, the disruptive Presbyterian fan yelled — brace yourselves — "Don't miss, Deon!" when Deon Thompson was at the free-throw line.
Oh the horror! I can't imagine how Deon Thompson, a senior by the way, could take such verbal abuse. I could see if the fan had cursed or acted unruly the entire game, but that wasn't the case. I am not bashing or being down on Roy Williams, he is just like every other coach though I don't know if any other coach would have a fun removed for such a comment, but he always gets the reputation for being super nice even though this isn't true.
2. Jemele Hill doesn't think Tiger Woods should take a leave from golf.
This is a sucka move, Tiger.
Oh shit, JemeHill is talking urban talk. That's how you know she means business.
I can't believe you're running. Can't believe you've allowed these alleged mistresses and tabloids to run you off your job.
How dare you quit playing golf, as your wife reportedly asked you to, so that you could focus on your marriage. What a selfish bitch move...sucka.
But announcing Friday that you'll take an indefinite leave of absence from golf is, by far, your worst idea yet.
Porking cocktail waitresses, escorts, and pornstars that number in the double digits was not as bad an idea as temporarily stopping playing golf to undue some of the damage done? I just want to make sure I understand JemeHill's patented backwards-ass premise. I think I do get it.
If this was a scheme concocted by your handlers, get some new people. One of the reasons you're in this mess is because your handlers helped you craft an image that wasn't really you.
Tiger Woods should blame his handlers that he is marketable. They should have concocted an image for Tiger that included him screwing a pornstar in the backseat of a Buick or gotten a deal with Verizon to advertise for the new "Cheat Phone" which immediately erases all text messages, phone calls, and correspondence from select phone numbers. You know, to make it the more "real" Tiger the public sees in his commercials.
But if stepping away from golf is a calculated public relations stunt meant to generate some empathy, that means you've learned nothing from this entire ordeal.
Obviously Tiger is not subscribing to the Kobe Bryant school of making up with his wife after he cheats by purchasing her a massive diamond ring and looking really, really sorry. The media loves that so much more because they get to see the athlete grovel. Which is all they really want.
Based on her comments here, I don't know if JemeHill should ever be a public relations person for anyone in the world. EVER. She would somehow manage to be worse at PR than she can be at journalism.
Despite the clamoring for you to come clean -- a laughable idea, because it's as if people expect you to pass out a list containing the name of every woman you've had a sexual encounter with since getting married -- the only people you owe an apology to are Mrs. Woods and your business partners.
So JemeHill doesn't think Tiger Woods should come clean nor should he take some time off from golf to get his life back in order. JemeHill also believes it is not really the media's business who and what Tiger Woods is screwing...yet here she is, writing an entire article about Tiger Woods and giving him suggestions telling him what to do.
If you play, and especially if you win, it will remind people why they were drawn to you in the first place.
Distract the masses with golf! They are gullible and will believe absolutely anything you say. People are stupid JemeHill says. What JemeHill doesn't seem to recognize is that Tiger's wife wants him to take this sabbatical from golf...perhaps now is the time to listen to what she wants?
I know some of my media brethren are pretending you patented creepin', but a lot of people in this country can identify with your situation.
More urban talk, this means JemeHill means MORE business now. Her new advice: Be a role model to cheaters everywhere.
According to a recent Marist poll, seven out of 10 people think you should deal with your personal crisis privately.
I like how JemeHill quotes this statistic and then fails to realize taking a sabbatical from golf is Tiger Woods dealing with the personal crisis privately.
The best revenge is success.
"The best revenge?" Tiger is not the victim here. He is the person who did the victimizing...to his family...which he is now trying to rectify.
In other words, stop acting like a prisoner and behave more like a man who is truly ready to face his problems. Act like you're the face of golf.
Act like a pompous asshole. That will turn the tide your way in a heartbeat!
That way women will say, "Well he doesn't seem sorry because he is acting like he is the king of the world. I don't like him."
Men will say, "I can't like Tiger because my wife will kill me and he does seem like a sleaze."
Sponsors will give him the "We want him as our sponsor but he doesn't seem apologetic enough at this point, so best not touch him for a couple of years...then we will quietly give him a contract to sponsor our products" treatment.
Elin Woods will say, "I can't wait to divorce his ass and take 50% of everything, plus the kids."
Acting like he is the face of golf, showing his face in public before his wife wants him to, and being cocky doesn't seem to be the best move at this point. I'm not PR person, but neither is JemeHill.
Use this situation to your advantage. Your buddy Michael Jordan used any slight, no matter how small, to drive him. And this personal failing and the fallout from it should motivate you for the next decade.
Pretend you are a victim and delude yourself into believing the world is holding you down for your transgressions. More non-brilliant advice from JemeHill.
The people who disapprove of you because of that will still disapprove of you even if you save a child from a burning building tomorrow. And the people who love you are going to love you regardless.
Ever so untrue. Tiger will survive this if he acts contrite (which he has), shows he cares about his marriage (which he is trying to do), and kicks ass at golf when he comes back (not quite here yet). If Tiger tries to skip any of these steps, I don't know how this will work out for him. Many of his fans feel pretty let down right now...mostly because they are pathetic and for some reason thought he was a god, but that's a different story.
You wouldn't tell the public the whole truth anyway; and once again, the tabloids would have the upper hand.
The media is well-known for just accepting answers and not doing any research? When did this media show up in America and no one told me? I am only used to the media that hears an apology and then spends the next 2 weeks trying to poke holes in the apology.
Bottom line: JemeHill is wrong that Tiger is making a mistake by taking a sabbatical from golf.
3. Tracy "The Cowboy" Ringolsby thinks Edgar Martinez is the test case for DH's in the Hall of Fame.
Can Martinez speed up the process for the designated hitter?
I think the case of Edgar Martinez is not a case for Designated Hitters, but more of a case for borderline players who can get in. I don't think it really matters if Martinez was a DH or not, other than the fact the Hall of Fame electors can't take his defense into account when looking at his candidacy. I don't like the DH, simply because I am a National League guy, but I understand it's purpose for those that don't like to watch pitchers bat.
The validity of his candidacy will hinge on how dominant voters feel a one-dimensional player needs to have been.
I don't see how Edgar Martinez's case is any different than another player who may make the Hall of Fame but wasn't the strongest fielder in the world. Clearly a player being only a DH is a little bit different from a player who plays the field exceptionally poorly, but I see them as nearly the same thing in the long run. I don't think Edgar Martinez deserves to be in the Hall of Fame just based on merits unfortunately, he probably deserves to be in the hyperbolic "Hall of Very Good" in my mind. He was a great hitter but I am not sure he was one of the best hitters of all-time. As far as him being a DH for the majority of his career, that is probably going to hurt him in the minds of some voters.
A guy like Mike Piazza isn't going to be precluded from the Hall of Fame because he wasn't the strongest fielding catcher, under that similar premise I don't see how a guy who was a full-time DH could be not included in the Hall of Fame because he was a full-time DH.
One other thing and I do hate to bring this up...but Edgar Martinez did play right smack dab in the middle of the "Steroid Era" of baseball. I don't think this should be held against him because he never actually was accused or caught using any type of PED. Still, I like to keep this in mind.
Here is Martinez in the early 90's.
Here is Martinez towards the end of his career.
Obviously, I am not saying he used steroids, but it is pretty obvious he hit the weight room at some point during those years and PEDs were prevalent in baseball. I am not saying he used steroids, I am just saying we should think about these things.
While Martinez did have a career .312 average in more than 18 seasons with Seattle, will the fact he didn't come close to 3,000 hits (he had 2,247), 400 home runs (he had 309) nor 1,500 RBI (1,261) work against him?
Not specifically because of those numbers, I just don't know if Martinez deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. His numbers looked great, I just don't know if they were good enough to be in the Hall of Fame.
How voters respond to Martinez will create a baseline for future DH candidates.
That could happen, but I think the DH should be treated like every other player based on his numbers. The DH situation is not like the reliever situation in regards to whether each group should make the Hall of Fame. How many times is a power hitting player's defensive prowess even mentioned when talking about whether he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame? The DH should still have Hall of Fame type numbers to make it based on the "older" criteria, while relievers sort of have "new" categories like saves being considered for their candidacy.
I don't think Martinez should be treated any differently than another borderline Hall of Fame candidate. No matter whether he is a DH or not, he should be inducted based on his merits. Should the prospective DH Hall of Fame candidates be held to a higher standard? Possibly, but I think regardless of whether he was a DH or not Edgar Martinez may not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Maybe I am showing some East Coast Bias, I don't know, but he was a great hitter...just probably not one of the best hitters of all-time in my mind.
Of course I am a Hall of Fame snob...
1. Today I start it all off with Roy Williams (the UNC Tar Heels coach, not the wide receiver or the safety who play and semi-underachieve in the NFL) and his need to show the world what an asshole he can be. For just one minute he dropped his "aw shucks" demeanor and turned into the world class assassin and recruiter we know he really can be. Basically, he kicked a Presbyterian College fan out of a UNC Tar Heels basketball game because they heckled one of his players. How dare an opposing fan dare to cheer against the Tar Heels in the Dean Dome!
During the post-game press conference, Williams puts on his best shit-kicker car salesman smile and explains to reporters that he had the fan removed because he doesn't think that "anybody should yell anything negative at our players. Period."
Especially a fan of the opposing team who had the audacity to purchase a ticket in the crypt, I mean arena, that is the Dean Dome. How dare a Presbyterian College fan yell during free throw attempts! Doesn't this unruly person know that if he screams too loud he might wake up the wealthy UNC boosters who are trying to take a nap during the game? And what's with the yelling anyway, it's a basketball game, not a football game. Silence is appreciated in the Dean Dome at all times.
Here's a quick thought: You are the head coach of an NCAA basketball team. You are at home in a game against an opponent who is about as strong as an above average high school team. If you are able to hear one person in the crowd yelling against your team during the game then perhaps your home crowd should get a little bit more pumped up and make some noise. Shouldn't the home crowd be loud enough to where hecklers for the other team can't be heard? It's not this fan's fault he was cheering for Presbyterian College and no one was making noise when he yelled something non-abrasive. If the arena isn't loud enough, don't blame the heckler, blame the extremely quiet crowd that can't seem to get into the game sufficiently, no matter what the score of the game is or how many national championships the school has won.
One reporter continued to probe about what the fan said — "was it vulgar?" — but Roy just summarily disposed of the question and threatened to end the presser if there were anymore questions about it.
We all know my feelings towards UNC, but I like Roy Williams. He is a good, clean coach who recruits better than pretty much any modern day coach and generally seems like a good guy. He was nice to my fiance at a golf tournament a few years ago, so I won't burn his image in effigy. What irritates me though is that the media fails to see what a cutthroat asshole Roy Williams really can be. Coach K of Duke is seen as a guy who manipulates referees, curses too much and is just an overall evil guy. Mostly he is seen this way by opposing teams. Gary Williams is the guy who sweats a lot and can't recruit against teams like Georgetown and the rest of the Big East (not true) so he gets whoever he can for his team and works his magic. Sidney Lowe is the lazy head coach of the NC State Wolfpack who can't seem to recruit a team that plays together well, which is moderately true. Roy Williams is the nice guy coach who yells at his players just to make them better, is a marketer's dream come true because he is wholesome as white bread, and just wants to see his team succeed.
Outside of Sidney Lowe, Gary Williams and Coach K are seen as guys who are fairly cutthroat, but no one ever sees Roy Williams that way. This isn't true at all though. He can be a jerk and he does the "indignant anger" thing better than any other NCAA coach. This incident goes to show this. Roy Williams is clearly in the wrong, he basically kicked this person out of the game for not cheering for UNC which is (a) a very dictator-esque sort of thing to do and (b) incredibly rude to do to a person who was not unruly and had actually paid to watch the game. If this fan doesn't want to cheer for UNC, it's his seat and money, he doesn't have to.
Then to make matters worse, Roy Williams refuses to acknowledge he overreacted, acts like a 5 year old when he is even questioned about his actions and threatens to cancel the press conference if he is asked the question again. You know what? It's Roy's right to do that because he is the head coach, but this just goes to show me Roy Williams is a master at putting up a facade of genial kindness and will do anything to show he is in control of his program, including taking a "my way or the highway" approach to second guessing him. Roy has a temper and has a real problem with controlling it, yet we still see him as a gentle kind guy. We've seen him lose his temper before on national television.
Think about Bonnie Bernstein asking Roy Williams about the open UNC job after his Kansas team lost to Syracuse in the 2003 National Title game. He cursed at her and told her he didn't give a damn about that (the UNC) job, he was worried about his guys in the locker room. He acknowledged it wasn't her asking the question, but knew it was the guys in the control booth who wanted it asked, but he did take his anger out on her. Of course a few weeks later, the job he didn't give a damn about ended up being his new job and he has been quite successful at it. Roy Williams is not a bad guy, but he is just like every other coach of a great and successful NCAA basketball team and can be a real jerk. Sometimes the media forgets that.
Before I get done rambling about this, imagine if Coach K, Jim Calhoun or Bob Knight had done this. People would flip out about it. We would never hear the end of this story, but Roy is seen as a nice guy so even someone who follows NCAA basketball fairly closely like me only hears about this incident a couple days after it happens.
Let's see what horrible thing the fan said that drew the ire of Roy Williams:
According to one reader, the disruptive Presbyterian fan yelled — brace yourselves — "Don't miss, Deon!" when Deon Thompson was at the free-throw line.
Oh the horror! I can't imagine how Deon Thompson, a senior by the way, could take such verbal abuse. I could see if the fan had cursed or acted unruly the entire game, but that wasn't the case. I am not bashing or being down on Roy Williams, he is just like every other coach though I don't know if any other coach would have a fun removed for such a comment, but he always gets the reputation for being super nice even though this isn't true.
2. Jemele Hill doesn't think Tiger Woods should take a leave from golf.
This is a sucka move, Tiger.
Oh shit, JemeHill is talking urban talk. That's how you know she means business.
I can't believe you're running. Can't believe you've allowed these alleged mistresses and tabloids to run you off your job.
How dare you quit playing golf, as your wife reportedly asked you to, so that you could focus on your marriage. What a selfish bitch move...sucka.
But announcing Friday that you'll take an indefinite leave of absence from golf is, by far, your worst idea yet.
Porking cocktail waitresses, escorts, and pornstars that number in the double digits was not as bad an idea as temporarily stopping playing golf to undue some of the damage done? I just want to make sure I understand JemeHill's patented backwards-ass premise. I think I do get it.
If this was a scheme concocted by your handlers, get some new people. One of the reasons you're in this mess is because your handlers helped you craft an image that wasn't really you.
Tiger Woods should blame his handlers that he is marketable. They should have concocted an image for Tiger that included him screwing a pornstar in the backseat of a Buick or gotten a deal with Verizon to advertise for the new "Cheat Phone" which immediately erases all text messages, phone calls, and correspondence from select phone numbers. You know, to make it the more "real" Tiger the public sees in his commercials.
But if stepping away from golf is a calculated public relations stunt meant to generate some empathy, that means you've learned nothing from this entire ordeal.
Obviously Tiger is not subscribing to the Kobe Bryant school of making up with his wife after he cheats by purchasing her a massive diamond ring and looking really, really sorry. The media loves that so much more because they get to see the athlete grovel. Which is all they really want.
Based on her comments here, I don't know if JemeHill should ever be a public relations person for anyone in the world. EVER. She would somehow manage to be worse at PR than she can be at journalism.
Despite the clamoring for you to come clean -- a laughable idea, because it's as if people expect you to pass out a list containing the name of every woman you've had a sexual encounter with since getting married -- the only people you owe an apology to are Mrs. Woods and your business partners.
So JemeHill doesn't think Tiger Woods should come clean nor should he take some time off from golf to get his life back in order. JemeHill also believes it is not really the media's business who and what Tiger Woods is screwing...yet here she is, writing an entire article about Tiger Woods and giving him suggestions telling him what to do.
If you play, and especially if you win, it will remind people why they were drawn to you in the first place.
Distract the masses with golf! They are gullible and will believe absolutely anything you say. People are stupid JemeHill says. What JemeHill doesn't seem to recognize is that Tiger's wife wants him to take this sabbatical from golf...perhaps now is the time to listen to what she wants?
I know some of my media brethren are pretending you patented creepin', but a lot of people in this country can identify with your situation.
More urban talk, this means JemeHill means MORE business now. Her new advice: Be a role model to cheaters everywhere.
According to a recent Marist poll, seven out of 10 people think you should deal with your personal crisis privately.
I like how JemeHill quotes this statistic and then fails to realize taking a sabbatical from golf is Tiger Woods dealing with the personal crisis privately.
The best revenge is success.
"The best revenge?" Tiger is not the victim here. He is the person who did the victimizing...to his family...which he is now trying to rectify.
In other words, stop acting like a prisoner and behave more like a man who is truly ready to face his problems. Act like you're the face of golf.
Act like a pompous asshole. That will turn the tide your way in a heartbeat!
That way women will say, "Well he doesn't seem sorry because he is acting like he is the king of the world. I don't like him."
Men will say, "I can't like Tiger because my wife will kill me and he does seem like a sleaze."
Sponsors will give him the "We want him as our sponsor but he doesn't seem apologetic enough at this point, so best not touch him for a couple of years...then we will quietly give him a contract to sponsor our products" treatment.
Elin Woods will say, "I can't wait to divorce his ass and take 50% of everything, plus the kids."
Acting like he is the face of golf, showing his face in public before his wife wants him to, and being cocky doesn't seem to be the best move at this point. I'm not PR person, but neither is JemeHill.
Use this situation to your advantage. Your buddy Michael Jordan used any slight, no matter how small, to drive him. And this personal failing and the fallout from it should motivate you for the next decade.
Pretend you are a victim and delude yourself into believing the world is holding you down for your transgressions. More non-brilliant advice from JemeHill.
The people who disapprove of you because of that will still disapprove of you even if you save a child from a burning building tomorrow. And the people who love you are going to love you regardless.
Ever so untrue. Tiger will survive this if he acts contrite (which he has), shows he cares about his marriage (which he is trying to do), and kicks ass at golf when he comes back (not quite here yet). If Tiger tries to skip any of these steps, I don't know how this will work out for him. Many of his fans feel pretty let down right now...mostly because they are pathetic and for some reason thought he was a god, but that's a different story.
You wouldn't tell the public the whole truth anyway; and once again, the tabloids would have the upper hand.
The media is well-known for just accepting answers and not doing any research? When did this media show up in America and no one told me? I am only used to the media that hears an apology and then spends the next 2 weeks trying to poke holes in the apology.
Bottom line: JemeHill is wrong that Tiger is making a mistake by taking a sabbatical from golf.
3. Tracy "The Cowboy" Ringolsby thinks Edgar Martinez is the test case for DH's in the Hall of Fame.
Can Martinez speed up the process for the designated hitter?
I think the case of Edgar Martinez is not a case for Designated Hitters, but more of a case for borderline players who can get in. I don't think it really matters if Martinez was a DH or not, other than the fact the Hall of Fame electors can't take his defense into account when looking at his candidacy. I don't like the DH, simply because I am a National League guy, but I understand it's purpose for those that don't like to watch pitchers bat.
The validity of his candidacy will hinge on how dominant voters feel a one-dimensional player needs to have been.
I don't see how Edgar Martinez's case is any different than another player who may make the Hall of Fame but wasn't the strongest fielder in the world. Clearly a player being only a DH is a little bit different from a player who plays the field exceptionally poorly, but I see them as nearly the same thing in the long run. I don't think Edgar Martinez deserves to be in the Hall of Fame just based on merits unfortunately, he probably deserves to be in the hyperbolic "Hall of Very Good" in my mind. He was a great hitter but I am not sure he was one of the best hitters of all-time. As far as him being a DH for the majority of his career, that is probably going to hurt him in the minds of some voters.
A guy like Mike Piazza isn't going to be precluded from the Hall of Fame because he wasn't the strongest fielding catcher, under that similar premise I don't see how a guy who was a full-time DH could be not included in the Hall of Fame because he was a full-time DH.
One other thing and I do hate to bring this up...but Edgar Martinez did play right smack dab in the middle of the "Steroid Era" of baseball. I don't think this should be held against him because he never actually was accused or caught using any type of PED. Still, I like to keep this in mind.
Here is Martinez in the early 90's.
Here is Martinez towards the end of his career.
Obviously, I am not saying he used steroids, but it is pretty obvious he hit the weight room at some point during those years and PEDs were prevalent in baseball. I am not saying he used steroids, I am just saying we should think about these things.
While Martinez did have a career .312 average in more than 18 seasons with Seattle, will the fact he didn't come close to 3,000 hits (he had 2,247), 400 home runs (he had 309) nor 1,500 RBI (1,261) work against him?
Not specifically because of those numbers, I just don't know if Martinez deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. His numbers looked great, I just don't know if they were good enough to be in the Hall of Fame.
How voters respond to Martinez will create a baseline for future DH candidates.
That could happen, but I think the DH should be treated like every other player based on his numbers. The DH situation is not like the reliever situation in regards to whether each group should make the Hall of Fame. How many times is a power hitting player's defensive prowess even mentioned when talking about whether he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame? The DH should still have Hall of Fame type numbers to make it based on the "older" criteria, while relievers sort of have "new" categories like saves being considered for their candidacy.
I don't think Martinez should be treated any differently than another borderline Hall of Fame candidate. No matter whether he is a DH or not, he should be inducted based on his merits. Should the prospective DH Hall of Fame candidates be held to a higher standard? Possibly, but I think regardless of whether he was a DH or not Edgar Martinez may not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Maybe I am showing some East Coast Bias, I don't know, but he was a great hitter...just probably not one of the best hitters of all-time in my mind.
Of course I am a Hall of Fame snob...
Sunday, November 15, 2009
8 comments I Tried To Avoid This Article But I Couldn't
Occasionally I run across articles that I want to avoid because they really aren't meaty or exciting enough for me to write about here. Basically I know I will end up rambling and possibly not making sense about what I am trying to say. Usually after a week or so I realize the article is no longer relevant and I delete that article from my bookmarks. Very rarely, an article just sticks with me and I can't avoid it any further, so I just hope to get a good post up about it. Today, I have found such an article.
It's by a gentleman by the name of Mike Miller who seems like a good guy. I don't think what he writes is bad journalism, I just don't agree with it. It deals with an incredibly relevant subject in my life right now, which is college basketball...and more specifically the UNC Tar Heels.
I hate UNC. "Hate" is actually a weak word for how I feel about them. I was taught at a young age by my father, who went to NC State, that UNC is pure evil, they get all of the calls from the officials and they will ALWAYS be this way so I had better get used to it. Naturally at the age of 6 I become a fan of another team that is arch rivals with UNC. My father enjoyed this because I wasn't a UNC fan. Later, my sister naturally chose to go to UNC in an effort to see how far she could push my family. I still hate her for this.
Like clockwork, every summer I think about UNC basketball and decide that I can't figure out why I hate them so much because they are just a bunch of college kids who are trying to do something with their life and playing basketball in the meantime. It's just a jersey with a name on it.
Yet, like clockwork, when I watch UNC's first game of the year it takes me less than 1 minute to hate them again. Hate them with a passion to the point I actually don't even know why I hate them anymore, I just know I do.
Throw in the fact 75% of the state of North Carolina are UNC fans. Throw in the fact I have four guys who are going to be in my wedding and they are all UNC basketball fans...I am like Will Smith in "I Am Legend," I am surrounded by zombies (UNC fans) and there is really no way out. Basically I was near my boiling point for knowing UNC fans and I couldn't handle any more in my life.
Ok, enough "Dear Diary" shit...my point is that I hate UNC. My other point is that I am not a blind, deaf and dumb "Duke is the best" type fan. There is a reason there is a "Duke sucks" tag on this blog and I have probably been more critical of Coach K and his recruiting efforts over the past couple years. This is not a fan blog, this is a blog about bad journalism, so I am not going to start ragging on UNC for no reason. I have been incredibly fair to UNC over the past couple of years and picked them from the beginning of last year to win the National Championship. It was an easy call for me because they were a fantastic college basketball team and I don't really hate Roy Williams all that much. He seems like a good guy even though I wish he wasn't such a great recruiter. I am not a real journalist but I like to keep a little blogger integrity and ripping on teams for shits and giggles doesn't pass that blogger integrity test. So now that everyone has the entire background of my thoughts on UNC, let's get to the brief article about how great they are going to be this year at the end of the year.
If one game is any indication, North Carolina’s the team you don’t want to play. And if you have to, do it early.
Mike Miller wrote this article after UNC beat Florida International 88-72 at home. I watched the game as well and apparently he saw something in the blowout that really, really impressed him with the Tar Heels. They are an incredibly young team and lost pretty much their entire starting lineup to the NBA. Those are two factors that I think about when I think about how to rate the 2009-2010 North Carolina Tar Heels team. I am not down on them this year and I do think they will beat Duke twice (though I don't know why that should matter in this discussion), but I am not quite as high on them as Mike Miller is.
Check out this lineup:
Ed Davis, 6-10
Deon Thompson, 6-9
Tyler Zeller, 7-0
John Henson, 6-10
I don't know about Tyler Zeller. I tend not to get too excited about players who really aren't that proven in college basketball as of yet. I know he broke his wrist last year early and struggled after that, but I just feel like he is "just a guy" for Roy Williams. He may be an above average "guy," but I always feel like there will be other players who play his position who are possibly better than he is. Which he has happened to him twice so far (Ed Davis and John Henson sort of). He's good enough to be a contributor, but not good enough (at least for a 7-footer) to be an impact player. Sure, I am projecting a lot for a 19 year old kid who missed nearly all of last season, but if Mike Miller can project how good UNC will be at the end of the year based on how he sees the potential of the Tar Heels' players, I can do my own projections.
My point is that they are tall and skilled. That's great, but unfortunately the backcourt for UNC is a major question mark that I don't think is answered yet. A team needs three components in my mind (generally) to win the NCAA Tournament. They need an above average point guard, a skilled big man (in lieu of a skilled big man they need 1-2 athletic forwards that can rebound and score inside) and a senior leader on the roster. I'm not saying every team needs these ingredients, but this is generally what I look for in a team that is a National Championship contender.
So when Miller is saying that Carolina will be good at the end of the year, I can't just look at the team and think, "My God, they are tall" and be impressed because I don't see an above average point guard on the roster and I don't know if Marcus Ginyard can count as a senior leader. If there is no one that can get these guys the ball, UNC won't be as imposing as Mike Miller thinks they will be.
The Heels breezed past Florida International during Monday’s opener despite committing 26 turnovers, tied for the most ever during Williams’ tenure.
This is exactly my point. UNC has a young team that isn't the most experienced and is going to have trouble handling the ball a good portion of this year, in my opinion. 9 of those turnovers were committed by the "Big Four" that Miller mentioned and 5 were committed by Dexter Strickland in 11 minutes of action. That is some Greg Paulus-type impressive ball handling right there. Young teams with young backcourts tend to have turnover problems.
“For the most part, I thought we were active. We were trying hard,” Williams said afterward. “We just weren’t very sharp. But it’s what you should expect this time of year.”
The Tar Heels weren't very sharp and that can be expected this time of year, but we also have to remember the competition is going to be stiffer as the season goes along as well. So as the Tar Heels players progress the degree of difficulty should also increase. The Tar Heels rebounded to destroy NC Central a few nights later 89-42, but that school isn't even close to being a decent program, so I don't know what we can learn from that game.
The focus of the first part of this article is that the Tar Heels have tall players who are mobile and that is true, but again, I don't know if we can see that and just say the Tar Heels are going to be dangerous come March. I think it all depends on how the backcourt progresses and that means how Larry Drew II progresses, since he will be the starting point guard this year.
(Small sample size alert) Drew II is averaging 6 points, 6 assists, 3 turnovers and 1 steal so far in 20.5 minutes per game. It looks like he very well might up to the task if he can keep those turnovers down. My only point of contention is that he does have 6 turnovers so far in 2 games and I don't know if those are a result of trying to make a spectacular play or not. That doesn't seem like a whole lot of turnovers until you think that he played against two vastly inferior teams and point guards. His job isn't to score, it is to get the ball to the big men down low. He should be fine as long as he does that.
It stands to reason that’ll improve as the season wears on, and as Larry Drew II handles the ball more and more.
It also stands to reason that as the year wears on Drew II is going to face stiffer competition and teams will have scouted what he likes to do a little bit better. It's nice to assume that Drew II is going to get more comfortable and improve as the year goes on, and that very well may be true, but the Carolina backcourt has 6 guys who can play a major role in the backcourt and they are 2 freshmen, 2 sophomores who didn't play an enormous amount last year, 1 junior who hasn't seen much action and 1 senior who is better known for his defense. That's not a whole lot of experience and age in the backcourt for me to feel incredibly confident about this team's chances to go far in the NCAA Tournament. Sure, they will get experience during this year, but I am not confident that will be enough to make them "scary good." You can't just lose all the talent the Tar Heels lost after the National Championship and expect to make another run the next year automatically, no matter how good the next recruiting class is.
Pretty much none of the players in UNC's backcourt got major minutes last year during the NCAA Tournament run. This bothers me as well. Despite the optimism that Miller seems to have towards this team, I see some question marks that apparently he doesn't see. I don't know if I see this team being incredibly strong enough at the guard position down the stretch of the year to be "scary good."
Another reason I don't know if UNC is going to be "scary good" (what does this even mean really?) towards the end of the year is for this following reason. I am sure everyone has heard about the "freshman wall" that players seem to hit towards the end of their first year of college. It seems to hit jump shooters more than post players in college basketball. All of a sudden the long college basketball year starts to wear on players and shots start falling short and players start shooting jumpers rather than driving to the basket. I am not saying this is definitely going to happen to UNC, talk to me in February, but I don't think we can just automatically assume that simply because Ed Davis, John Henson, Ty Zeller, and Deon Thompson probably will improve as the year progresses the rest of the team will follow suit. It's just a big assumption for me to believe. I think the team will progress, but I also believe there will some inconsistency along with the progression.
Games against Ohio State (Nov. 19), Michigan State (Dec. 1), Kentucky (Dec. 5) and Texas (Dec. 19) will be the biggest tests, but ultimately they’ll just prepare UNC for March.
By then, every D-I team should hope to avoid that monster roster.
I just think this is a big assumption, and I could be proven wrong, but there are major question marks for me concerning UNC's backcourt. They remind me a little bit of the Wake Forest team last year in that they are tall and athletic, but very young. I just can't assume they will be different because they have "North Carolina Tar Heels" on their jersey. That Wake Forest team had a great recruiting class, young point guards, and looked great for a period of time but faded down the stretch. Their season ended with a loss to Cleveland State in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. I guess I just disagree with the sunny prediction for UNC.
What makes this progression even more ironic for me is that on October 2 of this year, Mike Miller posted this rant on his blog. He appears to greatly enjoy the rant of a UNC fan about how the MSM media was putting Duke in the Final Four over the next couple of years if they land Harrison Barnes and Kyrie Irving. He, like the author of the rant, seems to think it is a bit premature to project Duke will make the Final Four because they have "big name" recruits on their roster. The author's partial point is that you can't just see big names who are young, unproven college players and assume it will lead to success. Yet Mr. Miller has no problem projecting UNC is going to have a "scary good" team by the end of this year based on the young, unproven players on UNC's roster progressing greatly as the year goes along, which will lead to success in his mind.
I think this team is one year away from being "scary good." This was my poorly reasoned discussion about that topic.
One other thing I don't get. I don't get why no one hates the North Carolina Tar Heels. They are on television as much as any other college basketball team and they are more successful than any other college basketball program has been lately (in regard to National Championships). The media loves them and over covers them as much as any other team, unless in the past 6 months we have all forgotten about the four year "Tyler Hansbrough Full Court Press Media Coverage" experience. Yet, no one seems to hate on the Tar Heels. I don't get it.
-Most of us by now have seen how good Brandon Jennings has been in the NBA. He was one of the first high school athletes to get around the one-and-done rule by going overseas to play and it really has worked out well for him. Jeremy Tyler skipped part of high school to go play overseas but it hasn't worked out as well for him.
If anyone thought any high school athlete could go overseas and compete, read this article, because it shows that thinking isn't 100% true. When I googled the Internet for this article on Tyler, I saw that Seth Davis of CNNSI.com had also written about it. He made two really good points that deserve to be mentioned again.
First, that if Tyler thinks Makhtar Ndiaye is going to be able to help in any way, he is incredibly wrong. I would say that Ndiaye is probably the worst person the UNC basketball program has churned out in the past 20 years. UNC usually has good people on their basketball roster, but somehow Ndiaye fell through the cracks. Let's say I am not a fan of his. Tyler appears to have bad advisors and he dates Eazy-E's daughter. Yes, THAT Easy-E. I don't know what that means but it doesn't instill confidence in me.
There is one other point that needs to be mentioned. This was a point the mainstream media has failed to point out when talking about Brandon Jennings' situation. I know it is a shock that the MSM glossed over something isn't it? Brandon Jennings probably wasn't going to qualify to go to college based on his test scores, so the University of Arizona may have been a pipe dream for him. He was looking at having to go to a junior college or going overseas to play basketball, so he chose to make some money. I didn't know about this until a few weeks before this year's NBA draft because the media has glossed over this point in an effort to act like the NCAA wasn't going to have any good basketball players playing in college anymore. The media wants us to all panic, so they withheld this information from us in an effort to encourage everyone to freak out that all the good high school basketball players will go overseas for a year to play.
I don't know anything about Jeremy Tyler, but it's not easy for grown men to play overseas. Try reading Paul Shirley's book, "Can I Keep My Jersey?" if you don't believe me, but it is infinitely more difficult for a kid who should be in high school or his first year of college to play overseas. It's a different world and it appears that world right now is eating Jeremy Tyler alive.
I don't blame this situation on the one-and-done rule, this situation is actually caused by poor decision making on the part of the Tyler family. This is what happens when high school athletes and their families try to get around the rule in a creative fashion. It's not the NCAA's job to protect the athlete and prevent him/her from making bad decisions, but as long as the one-and-done rule is in effect high school athletes are going to try and get around it with varying degrees of success.
It's by a gentleman by the name of Mike Miller who seems like a good guy. I don't think what he writes is bad journalism, I just don't agree with it. It deals with an incredibly relevant subject in my life right now, which is college basketball...and more specifically the UNC Tar Heels.
I hate UNC. "Hate" is actually a weak word for how I feel about them. I was taught at a young age by my father, who went to NC State, that UNC is pure evil, they get all of the calls from the officials and they will ALWAYS be this way so I had better get used to it. Naturally at the age of 6 I become a fan of another team that is arch rivals with UNC. My father enjoyed this because I wasn't a UNC fan. Later, my sister naturally chose to go to UNC in an effort to see how far she could push my family. I still hate her for this.
Like clockwork, every summer I think about UNC basketball and decide that I can't figure out why I hate them so much because they are just a bunch of college kids who are trying to do something with their life and playing basketball in the meantime. It's just a jersey with a name on it.
Yet, like clockwork, when I watch UNC's first game of the year it takes me less than 1 minute to hate them again. Hate them with a passion to the point I actually don't even know why I hate them anymore, I just know I do.
Throw in the fact 75% of the state of North Carolina are UNC fans. Throw in the fact I have four guys who are going to be in my wedding and they are all UNC basketball fans...I am like Will Smith in "I Am Legend," I am surrounded by zombies (UNC fans) and there is really no way out. Basically I was near my boiling point for knowing UNC fans and I couldn't handle any more in my life.
Ok, enough "Dear Diary" shit...my point is that I hate UNC. My other point is that I am not a blind, deaf and dumb "Duke is the best" type fan. There is a reason there is a "Duke sucks" tag on this blog and I have probably been more critical of Coach K and his recruiting efforts over the past couple years. This is not a fan blog, this is a blog about bad journalism, so I am not going to start ragging on UNC for no reason. I have been incredibly fair to UNC over the past couple of years and picked them from the beginning of last year to win the National Championship. It was an easy call for me because they were a fantastic college basketball team and I don't really hate Roy Williams all that much. He seems like a good guy even though I wish he wasn't such a great recruiter. I am not a real journalist but I like to keep a little blogger integrity and ripping on teams for shits and giggles doesn't pass that blogger integrity test. So now that everyone has the entire background of my thoughts on UNC, let's get to the brief article about how great they are going to be this year at the end of the year.
If one game is any indication, North Carolina’s the team you don’t want to play. And if you have to, do it early.
Mike Miller wrote this article after UNC beat Florida International 88-72 at home. I watched the game as well and apparently he saw something in the blowout that really, really impressed him with the Tar Heels. They are an incredibly young team and lost pretty much their entire starting lineup to the NBA. Those are two factors that I think about when I think about how to rate the 2009-2010 North Carolina Tar Heels team. I am not down on them this year and I do think they will beat Duke twice (though I don't know why that should matter in this discussion), but I am not quite as high on them as Mike Miller is.
Check out this lineup:
Ed Davis, 6-10
Deon Thompson, 6-9
Tyler Zeller, 7-0
John Henson, 6-10
I don't know about Tyler Zeller. I tend not to get too excited about players who really aren't that proven in college basketball as of yet. I know he broke his wrist last year early and struggled after that, but I just feel like he is "just a guy" for Roy Williams. He may be an above average "guy," but I always feel like there will be other players who play his position who are possibly better than he is. Which he has happened to him twice so far (Ed Davis and John Henson sort of). He's good enough to be a contributor, but not good enough (at least for a 7-footer) to be an impact player. Sure, I am projecting a lot for a 19 year old kid who missed nearly all of last season, but if Mike Miller can project how good UNC will be at the end of the year based on how he sees the potential of the Tar Heels' players, I can do my own projections.
My point is that they are tall and skilled. That's great, but unfortunately the backcourt for UNC is a major question mark that I don't think is answered yet. A team needs three components in my mind (generally) to win the NCAA Tournament. They need an above average point guard, a skilled big man (in lieu of a skilled big man they need 1-2 athletic forwards that can rebound and score inside) and a senior leader on the roster. I'm not saying every team needs these ingredients, but this is generally what I look for in a team that is a National Championship contender.
So when Miller is saying that Carolina will be good at the end of the year, I can't just look at the team and think, "My God, they are tall" and be impressed because I don't see an above average point guard on the roster and I don't know if Marcus Ginyard can count as a senior leader. If there is no one that can get these guys the ball, UNC won't be as imposing as Mike Miller thinks they will be.
The Heels breezed past Florida International during Monday’s opener despite committing 26 turnovers, tied for the most ever during Williams’ tenure.
This is exactly my point. UNC has a young team that isn't the most experienced and is going to have trouble handling the ball a good portion of this year, in my opinion. 9 of those turnovers were committed by the "Big Four" that Miller mentioned and 5 were committed by Dexter Strickland in 11 minutes of action. That is some Greg Paulus-type impressive ball handling right there. Young teams with young backcourts tend to have turnover problems.
“For the most part, I thought we were active. We were trying hard,” Williams said afterward. “We just weren’t very sharp. But it’s what you should expect this time of year.”
The Tar Heels weren't very sharp and that can be expected this time of year, but we also have to remember the competition is going to be stiffer as the season goes along as well. So as the Tar Heels players progress the degree of difficulty should also increase. The Tar Heels rebounded to destroy NC Central a few nights later 89-42, but that school isn't even close to being a decent program, so I don't know what we can learn from that game.
The focus of the first part of this article is that the Tar Heels have tall players who are mobile and that is true, but again, I don't know if we can see that and just say the Tar Heels are going to be dangerous come March. I think it all depends on how the backcourt progresses and that means how Larry Drew II progresses, since he will be the starting point guard this year.
(Small sample size alert) Drew II is averaging 6 points, 6 assists, 3 turnovers and 1 steal so far in 20.5 minutes per game. It looks like he very well might up to the task if he can keep those turnovers down. My only point of contention is that he does have 6 turnovers so far in 2 games and I don't know if those are a result of trying to make a spectacular play or not. That doesn't seem like a whole lot of turnovers until you think that he played against two vastly inferior teams and point guards. His job isn't to score, it is to get the ball to the big men down low. He should be fine as long as he does that.
It stands to reason that’ll improve as the season wears on, and as Larry Drew II handles the ball more and more.
It also stands to reason that as the year wears on Drew II is going to face stiffer competition and teams will have scouted what he likes to do a little bit better. It's nice to assume that Drew II is going to get more comfortable and improve as the year goes on, and that very well may be true, but the Carolina backcourt has 6 guys who can play a major role in the backcourt and they are 2 freshmen, 2 sophomores who didn't play an enormous amount last year, 1 junior who hasn't seen much action and 1 senior who is better known for his defense. That's not a whole lot of experience and age in the backcourt for me to feel incredibly confident about this team's chances to go far in the NCAA Tournament. Sure, they will get experience during this year, but I am not confident that will be enough to make them "scary good." You can't just lose all the talent the Tar Heels lost after the National Championship and expect to make another run the next year automatically, no matter how good the next recruiting class is.
Pretty much none of the players in UNC's backcourt got major minutes last year during the NCAA Tournament run. This bothers me as well. Despite the optimism that Miller seems to have towards this team, I see some question marks that apparently he doesn't see. I don't know if I see this team being incredibly strong enough at the guard position down the stretch of the year to be "scary good."
Another reason I don't know if UNC is going to be "scary good" (what does this even mean really?) towards the end of the year is for this following reason. I am sure everyone has heard about the "freshman wall" that players seem to hit towards the end of their first year of college. It seems to hit jump shooters more than post players in college basketball. All of a sudden the long college basketball year starts to wear on players and shots start falling short and players start shooting jumpers rather than driving to the basket. I am not saying this is definitely going to happen to UNC, talk to me in February, but I don't think we can just automatically assume that simply because Ed Davis, John Henson, Ty Zeller, and Deon Thompson probably will improve as the year progresses the rest of the team will follow suit. It's just a big assumption for me to believe. I think the team will progress, but I also believe there will some inconsistency along with the progression.
Games against Ohio State (Nov. 19), Michigan State (Dec. 1), Kentucky (Dec. 5) and Texas (Dec. 19) will be the biggest tests, but ultimately they’ll just prepare UNC for March.
By then, every D-I team should hope to avoid that monster roster.
I just think this is a big assumption, and I could be proven wrong, but there are major question marks for me concerning UNC's backcourt. They remind me a little bit of the Wake Forest team last year in that they are tall and athletic, but very young. I just can't assume they will be different because they have "North Carolina Tar Heels" on their jersey. That Wake Forest team had a great recruiting class, young point guards, and looked great for a period of time but faded down the stretch. Their season ended with a loss to Cleveland State in the first round of the NCAA Tournament. I guess I just disagree with the sunny prediction for UNC.
What makes this progression even more ironic for me is that on October 2 of this year, Mike Miller posted this rant on his blog. He appears to greatly enjoy the rant of a UNC fan about how the MSM media was putting Duke in the Final Four over the next couple of years if they land Harrison Barnes and Kyrie Irving. He, like the author of the rant, seems to think it is a bit premature to project Duke will make the Final Four because they have "big name" recruits on their roster. The author's partial point is that you can't just see big names who are young, unproven college players and assume it will lead to success. Yet Mr. Miller has no problem projecting UNC is going to have a "scary good" team by the end of this year based on the young, unproven players on UNC's roster progressing greatly as the year goes along, which will lead to success in his mind.
I think this team is one year away from being "scary good." This was my poorly reasoned discussion about that topic.
One other thing I don't get. I don't get why no one hates the North Carolina Tar Heels. They are on television as much as any other college basketball team and they are more successful than any other college basketball program has been lately (in regard to National Championships). The media loves them and over covers them as much as any other team, unless in the past 6 months we have all forgotten about the four year "Tyler Hansbrough Full Court Press Media Coverage" experience. Yet, no one seems to hate on the Tar Heels. I don't get it.
-Most of us by now have seen how good Brandon Jennings has been in the NBA. He was one of the first high school athletes to get around the one-and-done rule by going overseas to play and it really has worked out well for him. Jeremy Tyler skipped part of high school to go play overseas but it hasn't worked out as well for him.
If anyone thought any high school athlete could go overseas and compete, read this article, because it shows that thinking isn't 100% true. When I googled the Internet for this article on Tyler, I saw that Seth Davis of CNNSI.com had also written about it. He made two really good points that deserve to be mentioned again.
First, that if Tyler thinks Makhtar Ndiaye is going to be able to help in any way, he is incredibly wrong. I would say that Ndiaye is probably the worst person the UNC basketball program has churned out in the past 20 years. UNC usually has good people on their basketball roster, but somehow Ndiaye fell through the cracks. Let's say I am not a fan of his. Tyler appears to have bad advisors and he dates Eazy-E's daughter. Yes, THAT Easy-E. I don't know what that means but it doesn't instill confidence in me.
There is one other point that needs to be mentioned. This was a point the mainstream media has failed to point out when talking about Brandon Jennings' situation. I know it is a shock that the MSM glossed over something isn't it? Brandon Jennings probably wasn't going to qualify to go to college based on his test scores, so the University of Arizona may have been a pipe dream for him. He was looking at having to go to a junior college or going overseas to play basketball, so he chose to make some money. I didn't know about this until a few weeks before this year's NBA draft because the media has glossed over this point in an effort to act like the NCAA wasn't going to have any good basketball players playing in college anymore. The media wants us to all panic, so they withheld this information from us in an effort to encourage everyone to freak out that all the good high school basketball players will go overseas for a year to play.
I don't know anything about Jeremy Tyler, but it's not easy for grown men to play overseas. Try reading Paul Shirley's book, "Can I Keep My Jersey?" if you don't believe me, but it is infinitely more difficult for a kid who should be in high school or his first year of college to play overseas. It's a different world and it appears that world right now is eating Jeremy Tyler alive.
I don't blame this situation on the one-and-done rule, this situation is actually caused by poor decision making on the part of the Tyler family. This is what happens when high school athletes and their families try to get around the rule in a creative fashion. It's not the NCAA's job to protect the athlete and prevent him/her from making bad decisions, but as long as the one-and-done rule is in effect high school athletes are going to try and get around it with varying degrees of success.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
0 comments Random Thoughts about Everything
I have a lot of stuff rattling around my little brain right now and some shitty journalism to pick apart as well. We have two very quick and sudden college basketball semi-backtracks and of course some Woody, neither of which is bad journalism on its face but contains secret nuggets of shitty journalism right beneath the chocolate coating of credibility. Of course there is also good journalism which I will only mildly acknowledge because I am an asshole that way.
1. This is my favorite story ever that involves the words "sloppy seconds."
What I don't understand this week is NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's overreaction to Sean Avery's slightly off-color joke about his peers dating his exes.
This was beyond an overreaction, this almost infringed on one's ability to make free speech. It was an unfunny joke by a guy who is a certified asshole, but considering his ex has dated 3-4 hockey players, it is also very true. Let's face it, hockey needs as much press coverage as it can get right now, negative or positive, it really doesn't matter as long as it turns into ratings and public awareness of the sport. Sure you don't Sean Avery to be the representative of hockey but this is just a joke a guy made about his ex-girlfriend.
Bettman could've handled it by issuing a statement from the league apologizing to Cuthbert and any offended fans and promising to suspend Avery for his next, remotely inappropriate public comment.
This is where I disagree with Jason Whitlock. Why the hell would the league apologize to Elisha Cuthbert for the offensive comment made by her ex-boyfriend? Maybe if she would quit trying to date the entire NHL her asshole boyfriend would not get so bitter and try to make whiny, smart ass comments to reporters. I am not being a He-Man Woman-Hater here, it was wrong for him to make the comment publicly, but I am sure she really doesn't care overall and she has moved on. Using the words "sloppy seconds" is the only offensive part and that term is not offensive really, so I would imagine she is not too worried about it.
I think she needs to apologize to the public for a few of her movies that millions of people have innocently watched not knowing they were horrible. I think House of Wax ruined more people's lives than any Sean Avery comment.
We have to cut people a little slack, even people we don't like. Avery gets to be offensively flawed up to a point. He's yet to cross the line. We shouldn't push him over it.
I don't agree with Jason Whitlock on this whole article, he compares Sean Avery to Charles Barkley and I don't think the comparison is all the way correct, but the way he makes an argument (most of the time) so logically, it is hard to not agree with him sometimes. "Sloppy seconds" is not an inherently negative term, this is not a Don Imus situation, and there was no comment offensive to women here, it was directed at one person and is no different than what people talk about privately all the time.
2. We will let Gregg Doyel be the first to backtrack on his "Duke can compete with North Carolina article from yesterday."
Backtrack.
Humility is all I have going for me tonight, one night after watching No. 4 Duke dismantle No. 9 Purdue and deciding that even if No. 1 North Carolina is far and away the best team in the country, I'd give you the Tar Heels in the 2009 NCAA tournament if you'd give me the rest of the country.
Which, in my opinion, was beyond wrong. Carry on, man whose picture makes him look like a sexual predator.
Last night, I liked that idea a lot. Liked that story. Loved the phrasing. Even chuckled to myself -- I'll take the rest of the field ... how clever -- as I drove from West Lafayette, Ind., toward Detroit.
I can see him doing this, driving his Kia down the highway, leering at young women in cars and laughing loudly to himself at how funny that line was and how really, really awesome that goatee looks on him.
Tonight I hate it.
Because tonight I watched North Carolina for myself.
I don't know how to be speechless when typing, so I will say, I am speechless.
He has never watched UNC play for himself? Not at all this year? How did he write an article saying how Duke could beat them if he has never even watched them play. That's not a question, but a statement that makes no sense, just like him comparing two teams, one of which he has never seen play makes no sense to me.
That's quite a statement, right? But he's right. North Carolina is terrorizing everyone it plays, and North Carolina is only going to get better from here on out.
They are beyond awesome. No one is going to beat them this year and I really, really mean that. I am very tired of talking about this, but I need everyone on my side before I will shut up.
This is the first year I am actually looking forward to the Duke-UNC game because I have no expectations of Duke even keeping up going in. Usually I dread it because I don't talk to many of my best friends and call one of my siblings vile names all week.
With the benches more than two feet below the upraised Ford Field court, Izzo hoisted a single chair onto the floor and sat in it, alone, like a fourth-grader isolated from the rest of the class. The last time I looked, Izzo's face was gone. It was covered by his hands. His fingers were vigorously rubbing his forehead. Or trying to peel off the skin.
Here's a list of 3 coaches I hate (I respect them because they are good coaches, but hate them) in the order I hate these coaches:
1. Roy Williams
Why?
His quote about Tyler Hansbrough:
"He's a competitive rascal," Williams said.
I just want to punch him for using the word "rascal."
2. Jim Calhoun
Has broken my heart so many times and never has shown remorse and also has shown a remarkable resiliency to cancer which proves to me he is a robot sent here from the future to piss me off.
3. Tom Izzo
I find him annoying and his team's annoying and Mateen Cleaves was annoying and I will never forget how annoying I find him.
Yet, I felt bad for him last night. I would not feel bad for the other two on the list at any point, unless their lives hung in the balance or some other incident occurred not involving basketball, but I wanted to give Izzo a hug last night, because I know it will happen to my team too at some point.
You can have Jim Furyk, Phil Mickelson and Sergio Garcia. Give me Tiger Woods any day of the week.
I am glad he can admit he is wrong but seeing UNC play is usually a prerequisite to making bold statements about how they are beatable.
3. Jeff Goodman, you go ahead and start telling us how great UNC is.
There's no reason to wait four months. Tyler Hansbrough and his teammates should have just brought out a ladder and snipped the nets.
I wish they had, I have emotionally given up on this year.
"They just played into our game," North Carolina shooting guard Wayne Ellington said. "They tried to run back at us and that's crazy."
I only put Wayne Ellington's name in here because there are many women jealous of the eye liner he used the day he took his picture announcers show during games. It blends so well with his skin and I have promised them all I will find out where he gets it from. If anyone knows, please tell me.
I don't want to talk about UNC anymore...
4. I am always going to be shocked that Rick Reilly is making millions for shit like this. You could give anyone access to a set of pro athletes and time to look at the rule book and they could have written this article for about 1/100 the price Reilly charges ESPN.
Q: How many points do you get for returning a blocked PAT all the way?
Calvin Pace, LB, Jets: "Two? Isn't that the rule in college?"
Kerry Rhodes, S, Jets: "Wait, you're trying to trick me. It's either two or none. I say none."
Nick Mangold, C, Jets: "Seven? I have no idea."
Dustin Keller, TE, Jets: "I think it's two."
Madison: "Two."
Correct answer: Zero.
The entire article consists of players being asked questions about the rules of football and answering those questions to the best of their ability. That's it. He writes one of these a week and gets paid millions. Athletes are underpaid compared to the work he is putting in every week for the money he is receiving for that work. Bill Simmons has to be pissed people get on him for writing two columns a week and a podcast, thinking that is not enough.
5. Woody Paige is making shitty Christmas rhymes.
'Twas 23 nights before Christmas, when all through The Can, creatures were stirring, because each was a fan.
When, what to our wondering eyes should appear, but the Nuggets coach and 12 players dear.
George Karl whistled, and shouted, and called them by name: "Now, Chauncey! now, Melo! now, Nene and Kenyon! On, Dahntay! On, Linas! On, Carter and Chucky!
"Now, Birdman! Now, Balkman! Shoot, J.R.! Sit, Cheikh Samb! Now dash away! Play D our way! Rebound that ball! Go hard you all!"
Karl's eyes — how they twinkled, his dimples how merry. He had a broad face and a round belly, that shook when the Nugs scored 132, like a bowlful of jelly.
I know Woody Paige is trying to be hilarious but this is cheesy. I would describe Woody as the Crown Prince of Journalism but he is neither funny nor does he do any real journalism other than make knee jerk reactions after important games and then writes a mildy coherent column combining no comedy and the knee jerk reaction he has.
Iverson-for-Billups was a fair exchange.
Iverson is a great ball player but he is not, and never will be, an NBA point guard and a team with Carmelo Anthony that likes to run needs a legitimate point guard. Fortunately Chauncey Billups is just that.
Anthony and Kenyon Martin, both of whom questioned the deal and the departure of Iverson following the team's first practice after the blockbuster was officially announced, have been major beneficiaries and elevated their games.
Woody fails to point out this is Reason #239 you should never let your current players choose who plays on the roster for a team. They have a tendency to be wrong.
After another early exit in the postseason, some were thinking of Karl as Red Klotz (the coach of the Harlem Globetrotters' lap dogs),
I will let you all finish this sentence for me. If you have to explain the joke then, it is not...
but, with Billups as his extension on the floor, and with his new defensive schemes, and with Jones as a starter and with his renewed enthusiasm, Karl is being thought of with a couple of other Reds — Auerbach and Holtzman.
Woody just inferred, after an 11-3 record with Chauncey Billups as the starting point guard, George Karl is being compared to two coaching legends by anyone in the world outside of Woody himself. All George Karl needs now to complete the comparison is win a playoff series and three or four NBA titles. That's it...then we can finally compare these three coaching legends in the same breath. George Karl is a legend in the making.
6. You always wondered how Texas Tech had such a high powered and fast offense? Wonder no more.
The best part?
Texas Tech associate athletic director Chris Cook confirmed that Sanders is a housemate of All-American receiver Michael Crabtree and junior defensive end Brandon Sesay.
I am not suggesting anything here, but I am saying I usually knew what my roommates in college were doing and at times I would partake in what they did.
7. What is with Bill Simmons talking about the NBA getting "its curves back" and now he is predicting teams who will do better in the playoffs this summer because they are getting their "reps" in the playoffs. I have not provided a link but I am sure you can find his Friday article from last week.
As usual, he is making up terms rather than just say, "Cleveland could win the East this year because they have more experience." "Reps" is just another word for experience, yet he tries to make it seem much more elaborate than that, which it is not. The more a team plays in the playoffs, the more they get used to handling the spotlight. Simple as that.
I hope he posts something really bad tomorrow.
1. This is my favorite story ever that involves the words "sloppy seconds."
What I don't understand this week is NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's overreaction to Sean Avery's slightly off-color joke about his peers dating his exes.
This was beyond an overreaction, this almost infringed on one's ability to make free speech. It was an unfunny joke by a guy who is a certified asshole, but considering his ex has dated 3-4 hockey players, it is also very true. Let's face it, hockey needs as much press coverage as it can get right now, negative or positive, it really doesn't matter as long as it turns into ratings and public awareness of the sport. Sure you don't Sean Avery to be the representative of hockey but this is just a joke a guy made about his ex-girlfriend.
Bettman could've handled it by issuing a statement from the league apologizing to Cuthbert and any offended fans and promising to suspend Avery for his next, remotely inappropriate public comment.
This is where I disagree with Jason Whitlock. Why the hell would the league apologize to Elisha Cuthbert for the offensive comment made by her ex-boyfriend? Maybe if she would quit trying to date the entire NHL her asshole boyfriend would not get so bitter and try to make whiny, smart ass comments to reporters. I am not being a He-Man Woman-Hater here, it was wrong for him to make the comment publicly, but I am sure she really doesn't care overall and she has moved on. Using the words "sloppy seconds" is the only offensive part and that term is not offensive really, so I would imagine she is not too worried about it.
I think she needs to apologize to the public for a few of her movies that millions of people have innocently watched not knowing they were horrible. I think House of Wax ruined more people's lives than any Sean Avery comment.
We have to cut people a little slack, even people we don't like. Avery gets to be offensively flawed up to a point. He's yet to cross the line. We shouldn't push him over it.
I don't agree with Jason Whitlock on this whole article, he compares Sean Avery to Charles Barkley and I don't think the comparison is all the way correct, but the way he makes an argument (most of the time) so logically, it is hard to not agree with him sometimes. "Sloppy seconds" is not an inherently negative term, this is not a Don Imus situation, and there was no comment offensive to women here, it was directed at one person and is no different than what people talk about privately all the time.
2. We will let Gregg Doyel be the first to backtrack on his "Duke can compete with North Carolina article from yesterday."
Backtrack.
Humility is all I have going for me tonight, one night after watching No. 4 Duke dismantle No. 9 Purdue and deciding that even if No. 1 North Carolina is far and away the best team in the country, I'd give you the Tar Heels in the 2009 NCAA tournament if you'd give me the rest of the country.
Which, in my opinion, was beyond wrong. Carry on, man whose picture makes him look like a sexual predator.
Last night, I liked that idea a lot. Liked that story. Loved the phrasing. Even chuckled to myself -- I'll take the rest of the field ... how clever -- as I drove from West Lafayette, Ind., toward Detroit.
I can see him doing this, driving his Kia down the highway, leering at young women in cars and laughing loudly to himself at how funny that line was and how really, really awesome that goatee looks on him.
Tonight I hate it.
Because tonight I watched North Carolina for myself.
I don't know how to be speechless when typing, so I will say, I am speechless.
He has never watched UNC play for himself? Not at all this year? How did he write an article saying how Duke could beat them if he has never even watched them play. That's not a question, but a statement that makes no sense, just like him comparing two teams, one of which he has never seen play makes no sense to me.
That's quite a statement, right? But he's right. North Carolina is terrorizing everyone it plays, and North Carolina is only going to get better from here on out.
They are beyond awesome. No one is going to beat them this year and I really, really mean that. I am very tired of talking about this, but I need everyone on my side before I will shut up.
This is the first year I am actually looking forward to the Duke-UNC game because I have no expectations of Duke even keeping up going in. Usually I dread it because I don't talk to many of my best friends and call one of my siblings vile names all week.
With the benches more than two feet below the upraised Ford Field court, Izzo hoisted a single chair onto the floor and sat in it, alone, like a fourth-grader isolated from the rest of the class. The last time I looked, Izzo's face was gone. It was covered by his hands. His fingers were vigorously rubbing his forehead. Or trying to peel off the skin.
Here's a list of 3 coaches I hate (I respect them because they are good coaches, but hate them) in the order I hate these coaches:
1. Roy Williams
Why?
His quote about Tyler Hansbrough:
"He's a competitive rascal," Williams said.
I just want to punch him for using the word "rascal."
2. Jim Calhoun
Has broken my heart so many times and never has shown remorse and also has shown a remarkable resiliency to cancer which proves to me he is a robot sent here from the future to piss me off.
3. Tom Izzo
I find him annoying and his team's annoying and Mateen Cleaves was annoying and I will never forget how annoying I find him.
Yet, I felt bad for him last night. I would not feel bad for the other two on the list at any point, unless their lives hung in the balance or some other incident occurred not involving basketball, but I wanted to give Izzo a hug last night, because I know it will happen to my team too at some point.
You can have Jim Furyk, Phil Mickelson and Sergio Garcia. Give me Tiger Woods any day of the week.
I am glad he can admit he is wrong but seeing UNC play is usually a prerequisite to making bold statements about how they are beatable.
3. Jeff Goodman, you go ahead and start telling us how great UNC is.
There's no reason to wait four months. Tyler Hansbrough and his teammates should have just brought out a ladder and snipped the nets.
I wish they had, I have emotionally given up on this year.
"They just played into our game," North Carolina shooting guard Wayne Ellington said. "They tried to run back at us and that's crazy."
I only put Wayne Ellington's name in here because there are many women jealous of the eye liner he used the day he took his picture announcers show during games. It blends so well with his skin and I have promised them all I will find out where he gets it from. If anyone knows, please tell me.
I don't want to talk about UNC anymore...
4. I am always going to be shocked that Rick Reilly is making millions for shit like this. You could give anyone access to a set of pro athletes and time to look at the rule book and they could have written this article for about 1/100 the price Reilly charges ESPN.
Q: How many points do you get for returning a blocked PAT all the way?
Calvin Pace, LB, Jets: "Two? Isn't that the rule in college?"
Kerry Rhodes, S, Jets: "Wait, you're trying to trick me. It's either two or none. I say none."
Nick Mangold, C, Jets: "Seven? I have no idea."
Dustin Keller, TE, Jets: "I think it's two."
Madison: "Two."
Correct answer: Zero.
The entire article consists of players being asked questions about the rules of football and answering those questions to the best of their ability. That's it. He writes one of these a week and gets paid millions. Athletes are underpaid compared to the work he is putting in every week for the money he is receiving for that work. Bill Simmons has to be pissed people get on him for writing two columns a week and a podcast, thinking that is not enough.
5. Woody Paige is making shitty Christmas rhymes.
'Twas 23 nights before Christmas, when all through The Can, creatures were stirring, because each was a fan.
When, what to our wondering eyes should appear, but the Nuggets coach and 12 players dear.
George Karl whistled, and shouted, and called them by name: "Now, Chauncey! now, Melo! now, Nene and Kenyon! On, Dahntay! On, Linas! On, Carter and Chucky!
"Now, Birdman! Now, Balkman! Shoot, J.R.! Sit, Cheikh Samb! Now dash away! Play D our way! Rebound that ball! Go hard you all!"
Karl's eyes — how they twinkled, his dimples how merry. He had a broad face and a round belly, that shook when the Nugs scored 132, like a bowlful of jelly.
I know Woody Paige is trying to be hilarious but this is cheesy. I would describe Woody as the Crown Prince of Journalism but he is neither funny nor does he do any real journalism other than make knee jerk reactions after important games and then writes a mildy coherent column combining no comedy and the knee jerk reaction he has.
Iverson-for-Billups was a fair exchange.
Iverson is a great ball player but he is not, and never will be, an NBA point guard and a team with Carmelo Anthony that likes to run needs a legitimate point guard. Fortunately Chauncey Billups is just that.
Anthony and Kenyon Martin, both of whom questioned the deal and the departure of Iverson following the team's first practice after the blockbuster was officially announced, have been major beneficiaries and elevated their games.
Woody fails to point out this is Reason #239 you should never let your current players choose who plays on the roster for a team. They have a tendency to be wrong.
After another early exit in the postseason, some were thinking of Karl as Red Klotz (the coach of the Harlem Globetrotters' lap dogs),
I will let you all finish this sentence for me. If you have to explain the joke then, it is not...
but, with Billups as his extension on the floor, and with his new defensive schemes, and with Jones as a starter and with his renewed enthusiasm, Karl is being thought of with a couple of other Reds — Auerbach and Holtzman.
Woody just inferred, after an 11-3 record with Chauncey Billups as the starting point guard, George Karl is being compared to two coaching legends by anyone in the world outside of Woody himself. All George Karl needs now to complete the comparison is win a playoff series and three or four NBA titles. That's it...then we can finally compare these three coaching legends in the same breath. George Karl is a legend in the making.
6. You always wondered how Texas Tech had such a high powered and fast offense? Wonder no more.
The best part?
Texas Tech associate athletic director Chris Cook confirmed that Sanders is a housemate of All-American receiver Michael Crabtree and junior defensive end Brandon Sesay.
I am not suggesting anything here, but I am saying I usually knew what my roommates in college were doing and at times I would partake in what they did.
7. What is with Bill Simmons talking about the NBA getting "its curves back" and now he is predicting teams who will do better in the playoffs this summer because they are getting their "reps" in the playoffs. I have not provided a link but I am sure you can find his Friday article from last week.
As usual, he is making up terms rather than just say, "Cleveland could win the East this year because they have more experience." "Reps" is just another word for experience, yet he tries to make it seem much more elaborate than that, which it is not. The more a team plays in the playoffs, the more they get used to handling the spotlight. Simple as that.
I hope he posts something really bad tomorrow.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
8 comments Ten Things I Think I Think Peter King Has Not Thought Of: Tuesday Edition
I am not planning on doing my "Ten Things I Think..." on every Tuesday but today feels like a great day to do it again and I honestly enjoy doing it. My brain is very scattered and I have a lot to say about a lot of things and this lets me do it. So if you hate it, I am sorry.
1. Woody Paige is being tongue in cheek. Maybe. I thought that originally and then I read the entire article and found it did not seem like he really was. Woody seems to think the Broncos should be lauded for currently winning their division by three games. They are 7-5 and are the AFC West version of the Arizona Cardinals. They are in a weak division and they have an above average team. Congratulations should not be in order for this.
What do the New York Giants (11-1), the Tennessee Titans (11-1), the Arizona Cardinals (7-5) and the Denver Broncos (7-5) have in common?
They are the four most dominant division leaders in the NFL.
I had a friend in graduate school who described the girls at my graduate school in this way, and no I am not trying to be Bill Simmons, this actually has a point.
"These girls are at best a bunch of 5's and 6's walking around the campus like they are 10's. What happens anytime we go out? They immediately become the 5's and 6's who have to go up against the 10's and they get pissy and leave the bar to go home and watch Sex and the City re- runs on TBS." Not very insightful at all but the Broncos are a team that is a six on a scale of 1 to 10. There is really no reason to call them dominant.
Win out and they'll be 11-5, my preseason prediction. Lose out, and they will be below .500. If the Broncos win two, the Chargers (4-8) definitely will be shut out of the playoffs. Win one, and that game in San Diego will be significant. The division-common opponents-conference records tiebreakers would basically be even (based on results until now). Winner take all.
When your closest division rival is 4-8 and you are actually worried they may catch you, your team does not deserve to make the playoffs. I know these are the rules but if I were Woody Paige I would be embarrassed to write about this scenario.
Speaking of Woody Paige and bad journalism, if you go along the right side of his archive and see how many times he has dumped on the Broncos or said Mike Shanahan should be fired, you have to wonder how he can just jump right on the bandwagon like he seems to be doing in this column. Journalists are supposed to be neutral observers who reports what they see and use what little insight they may have to inform the reader, but it is disconcerting to read how Woody seems to think the Broncos go from a good team to a bad team from week to week.
2. I was watching part of Monday Night Football last night and when they were previewing next week's Tampa Bay v. Carolina game, Mike Tirico mentioned both teams have a 9-3 record and said, "I guess that is what you get when you draw the AFC West," and then Tony Kornheiser laughed. This is bad journalism and shows how little research these assholes really do.
Based on the season ending today, Tampa Bay has played or will play 6 games against playoff teams, which does not include a game against Dallas who could make the playoffs easily.
Carolina has played or will play 8 games against playoff teams.
I am not saying these are bad ass tough schedules or anything of the like but Carolina and Tampa Bay are in a division where the third place team has an 8-4 record in Atlanta. Just like the case of the Broncos, a team's record is pretty much what decides whether that team gets in the playoffs or not, regardless of who these teams have played. The AFC West stinks, I would agree with that, but I would hate to have a team in the NFC South division right now that is my favorite because it is very competitive no matter who they play out of the division.
3. Bob Klapisch doesn't seem to think the Mets have gotten their money's worth with Pedro.
Now, 32 wins and no world championships later, it's fair to ask: Was Pedro really worth the money? Not if the Mets are honest with themselves. Despite the projected success, Martinez broke down just as the Red Sox predicted after 2005 and was unable to deliver a single pennant, let alone a Series ring.
If anyone remembers correctly the Red Sox made Pedro a three year deal worth about $38 million and the general consensus was that a four year deal was one year too much for Pedro. If Pedro can't perform well in a contract year, he is never going to perform well. That's just a note to other teams in the MLB.
The Red Sox worried about his durability -- his shoulder, in particular -- hesitating just long enough to allow the Mets the chance to both overpay and over-commit.
The Mets actually knew they were overpaying and overcommitting to Pedro, so I am not sure how they could have expected to get the value out of Pedro they paid for.
Plucking away Martinez was an enormous public-relations coup, but today the Mets' hierarchy admits Pedro fell short of their expectations. "We thought we'd get three [good] years from him," one senior official said. "Turns out we got 2½."
What I don't get is why the Mets did not sign him to a three year deal for a larger yearly amount and try to forgo a fourth year on the contract? They clearly expected him to pitch well for three years so offer him the contract for that length, if he accepts great, if he does not accept then they could have signed Derek Lowe, who actually outperformed Pedro over the four year span.
This is why the Mets are constantly in second place in the NL East, they try to get public relations coups rather than signing players who are actually going to help the team.
If Martinez hadn't given the Mets instant credibility by taking his career to Shea, Beltran -- and later Billy Wagner and Johan Santana -- would never have ended up as Mets.
Maybe this is true but I find it hard to believe these players would have turned down going to the Mets because Pedro Martinez is not there. It's not like Santana, Beltran and Wagner were only looking to play for the same team as Pedro Martinez.
Indeed, no one got close to the seven-year, $119 million deal the Mets dropped in front of Beltran. But even after he was entering the final round of negotiations, Beltran still wasn't sold; agent Scott Boras secretly told the Yankees the center fielder would accept less money if the Bombers would make an offer.
So apparently the last sentence of this column was a complete lie. What kind of writing is this? Bob writes one sentence and then contradicts it with the next sentence. It's like he has multiple personalities.
You couldn't blame the Wilpons for revisiting Pedro's $53 million contract and asking themselves: Where did the money go?
Considering the Mets admit they overpaid and overcommitted to Pedro, they got exactly what they bargained for when they signed him. Why would you write questions and then answer them or contradict them? That's not writing a column, that is insanity.
4. Jemele Hill talks about charm school for athletes. Usually when Jemele writes the nation mourns the loss of intelligent and cohesive writing. This week the nation falls asleep due to boredom.
And so on. Goolsby and chef Robert Hewitt put them through a dining exercise. They practiced table manners through a three-course meal. They learned the different forks, which wines go with which foods and that if they're having a bad experience at a restaurant, they should talk to the manager privately instead of causing a disturbance.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz..............................................
When the five hours were up, the rookies couldn't say they hadn't received a complete education. They practiced writing thank-you notes to Lions owner William Clay Ford. They practiced making proper introductions and shaking hands: Lock the V of your hand with the other person's. Wrap the hand and thumb. Squeeze. Pump.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............
You might be thinking the winless Lions should have been studying film instead of salad forks, coverages instead of personal stationary. But consider the bigger picture. Today's professional athlete is under a lot of pressure to perform because he's representing billion-dollar corporations 24 hours a day.
Fantastic point Jemele! Next year instead of being the poorly behaved athletes who exhibit poor performance on the field and a lack of skills they currently are, they will be well behaved ex-athletes who work at Foot Locker.
I understand the premise but many of these rookies are not going to be on a roster in a few years and the only billion dollar corporation Gosder Cherilus is going to be representing in the future is Wal-Mart when he begins his job as a greeter at the age of 34 when he has blown through his millions. Gosder Cherilus sucks and the Lions do too.
I am surprised dumbass Jemele Hill did not call the article "Such Well Behaved Lions."
5. David Schoenfield, whose picture looks like he should get his ass kicked immediately and his Dunk-a-roos stolen at lunch, grades Scott Boras' free agent clients of the past.
He gave grades on a scale of 1-5 Scott Boras heads. How fucking creative! Now give me your lunch.
He gives Kevin Brown's deal two Boras heads and A Rod's deal two Boras heads. Really I have nothing else to add, other than the fact he thinks the Dodgers and the Yankees have gotten the same return on their free agent contracts with Kevin Brown and Alex Rodriguez.
The final tally: Umm, yeah … maybe a little pitching would have been nice. The Rangers have had one winning season in the eight years since the original signing and were so desperate to trade him they actually paid a portion of his Yankees salary. Despite A-Rod's productivity, the size of the deal proved disastrous.
You can't knock A Rod's Boras heads down because of the lack of pitching for the Rangers. Sure they could have used some pitching instead of hitting, but Alex Rodriguez was voted once as MVP with the Rangers and once as MVP with the Yankees. He got paid like the best player in the league and he played like it.
The fact neither team had any good pitching was not A Rod's fault. He also probably accounted for tons of money in merchandising and ticket sales. Why is everyone so down on A Rod?
He gave Andruw Jones' 2001 signing with the Braves three Boras heads despite the fact Scott Boras had nothing to do with the negotiation and the Braves were able to secure one of the best hitting and fielding centerfielders in MLB at below market price. Then he gives the signing of Beltran for $17 million per year three Boras heads. I think if you looked it up, which I did not, Jones probably performed at the same level as Beltran over the length of the contract...and clearly Jones was a better centerfielder.
I realize these are all objective but I love arguing with stupid measurements like this. They mean nothing, yet somehow some editor greenlights an article about it.
6. I have no real problem with the BCS mess. I know everyone likes a nice happy ending with no loose ends and one true champion but it's not going to happen with the current system. Everyone needs to just accept this.
I don't know what it says about the games that are played during the year when Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral field and yet Oklahoma is still seen as a better team by the BCS computers and the voters. I have heard people say that game was earlier in the year and Oklahoma has proven themselves to be a better team than when these teams played originally. Maybe, but if you can discount early season losses then what about Florida or USC? They lost early in the year and now are clearly better teams than they were then. Why don't they get a shot at the national championship? It seems the current system does dilute the outcome of early season games.
I don't think a playoff is ever going to happen and I really don't know how it could be implemented correctly either. There is just too much money in the BCS and it will always create interest in college football, regardless of negative or positive press, college football always gets coverage.
My biggest beefs are the one month wait for the championship games and the fact all one loss teams that lost early in the year are not considered for the National Championship based on the principle Oklahoma leapfrogged Texas.
7. For fear of agreeing with Gregg Doyel, this would help decide which team is better.
The problem isn't the BCS system that would rate the Sooners ahead of the Longhorns, even by a margin as slim as 45-35 the .0128 that separates them in the BCS rankings.
Tell me, please, what Missouri has done to earn its place in the Big 12 Championship Game. Won the Big 12 North?
I do have to agree another game between the teams with the best BCS rankings, despite division separation, would help decide whether Oklahoma or Texas deserved to be in the National Championship game. They are the two best teams in the Big 12 and another game would give one team two losses and make the decision easier as to who the best team is.
A "conference championship game" that doesn't pit the best two teams in the conference. Brilliant innovation.
I have to agree. Missouri is very weak, though if they beat Oklahoma, that will decide Texas was the better team definitely...and Texas did beat Texas Tech, so they would deserve it.
I have a headache.
8. Michael Phelps is Sportsman of the Year. I don't care what anyone says, I still think he looks like a douchebag. I laugh a little bit at the thought of him pumping himself up to the tunes of Eminem and Lil' Wayne...simply because he looks like the goofiest, whitest guy in the world. I look at him and think, now THIS is a guy who will hit on your girlfriend at a bar and then try to start a fight with you, but only long enough for his security to pull him away.
9. This is the funniest thing I have read on Foxsports.com in a while. I can not look at Chris Fowler in the same way again. We all know Jason Whitlock has a bone to pick with ESPN but this is an absolute classic.
10. Today's UNC Tar Heels fan note of the day: Same guy as last week came in my office yesterday and asked if I had seen UNC defeat UNC-Asheville, and said I did not. He described it in great detail to me, which I did not appreciate, and was bragging that UNC had their scrubs in the game at the beginning of the second half. Here's the conversation from there:
(Me) "They are #1 in the country, so they should therefore beat every single team in the country. You should expect this type of performance."
(Man I work with) "I don't think they are #1 in the country really, I don't know how they came about."
(Me) "A team of experts, coaches and sportswriters all agree UNC is the best team in the country. Don't lower expectations for your team pretending they are just some 'little team that could' when you have 7 players that could play in the NBA on the roster."
(Man I work with) "I don't know about that." ---then he left the room and this is why I have no friends.
You can't come bragging about how great your team is and then try to backtrack and lower expectations immediately after that. UNC should not lose a game this year, they are that good.
1. Woody Paige is being tongue in cheek. Maybe. I thought that originally and then I read the entire article and found it did not seem like he really was. Woody seems to think the Broncos should be lauded for currently winning their division by three games. They are 7-5 and are the AFC West version of the Arizona Cardinals. They are in a weak division and they have an above average team. Congratulations should not be in order for this.
What do the New York Giants (11-1), the Tennessee Titans (11-1), the Arizona Cardinals (7-5) and the Denver Broncos (7-5) have in common?
They are the four most dominant division leaders in the NFL.
I had a friend in graduate school who described the girls at my graduate school in this way, and no I am not trying to be Bill Simmons, this actually has a point.
"These girls are at best a bunch of 5's and 6's walking around the campus like they are 10's. What happens anytime we go out? They immediately become the 5's and 6's who have to go up against the 10's and they get pissy and leave the bar to go home and watch Sex and the City re- runs on TBS." Not very insightful at all but the Broncos are a team that is a six on a scale of 1 to 10. There is really no reason to call them dominant.
Win out and they'll be 11-5, my preseason prediction. Lose out, and they will be below .500. If the Broncos win two, the Chargers (4-8) definitely will be shut out of the playoffs. Win one, and that game in San Diego will be significant. The division-common opponents-conference records tiebreakers would basically be even (based on results until now). Winner take all.
When your closest division rival is 4-8 and you are actually worried they may catch you, your team does not deserve to make the playoffs. I know these are the rules but if I were Woody Paige I would be embarrassed to write about this scenario.
Speaking of Woody Paige and bad journalism, if you go along the right side of his archive and see how many times he has dumped on the Broncos or said Mike Shanahan should be fired, you have to wonder how he can just jump right on the bandwagon like he seems to be doing in this column. Journalists are supposed to be neutral observers who reports what they see and use what little insight they may have to inform the reader, but it is disconcerting to read how Woody seems to think the Broncos go from a good team to a bad team from week to week.
2. I was watching part of Monday Night Football last night and when they were previewing next week's Tampa Bay v. Carolina game, Mike Tirico mentioned both teams have a 9-3 record and said, "I guess that is what you get when you draw the AFC West," and then Tony Kornheiser laughed. This is bad journalism and shows how little research these assholes really do.
Based on the season ending today, Tampa Bay has played or will play 6 games against playoff teams, which does not include a game against Dallas who could make the playoffs easily.
Carolina has played or will play 8 games against playoff teams.
I am not saying these are bad ass tough schedules or anything of the like but Carolina and Tampa Bay are in a division where the third place team has an 8-4 record in Atlanta. Just like the case of the Broncos, a team's record is pretty much what decides whether that team gets in the playoffs or not, regardless of who these teams have played. The AFC West stinks, I would agree with that, but I would hate to have a team in the NFC South division right now that is my favorite because it is very competitive no matter who they play out of the division.
3. Bob Klapisch doesn't seem to think the Mets have gotten their money's worth with Pedro.
Now, 32 wins and no world championships later, it's fair to ask: Was Pedro really worth the money? Not if the Mets are honest with themselves. Despite the projected success, Martinez broke down just as the Red Sox predicted after 2005 and was unable to deliver a single pennant, let alone a Series ring.
If anyone remembers correctly the Red Sox made Pedro a three year deal worth about $38 million and the general consensus was that a four year deal was one year too much for Pedro. If Pedro can't perform well in a contract year, he is never going to perform well. That's just a note to other teams in the MLB.
The Red Sox worried about his durability -- his shoulder, in particular -- hesitating just long enough to allow the Mets the chance to both overpay and over-commit.
The Mets actually knew they were overpaying and overcommitting to Pedro, so I am not sure how they could have expected to get the value out of Pedro they paid for.
Plucking away Martinez was an enormous public-relations coup, but today the Mets' hierarchy admits Pedro fell short of their expectations. "We thought we'd get three [good] years from him," one senior official said. "Turns out we got 2½."
What I don't get is why the Mets did not sign him to a three year deal for a larger yearly amount and try to forgo a fourth year on the contract? They clearly expected him to pitch well for three years so offer him the contract for that length, if he accepts great, if he does not accept then they could have signed Derek Lowe, who actually outperformed Pedro over the four year span.
This is why the Mets are constantly in second place in the NL East, they try to get public relations coups rather than signing players who are actually going to help the team.
If Martinez hadn't given the Mets instant credibility by taking his career to Shea, Beltran -- and later Billy Wagner and Johan Santana -- would never have ended up as Mets.
Maybe this is true but I find it hard to believe these players would have turned down going to the Mets because Pedro Martinez is not there. It's not like Santana, Beltran and Wagner were only looking to play for the same team as Pedro Martinez.
Indeed, no one got close to the seven-year, $119 million deal the Mets dropped in front of Beltran. But even after he was entering the final round of negotiations, Beltran still wasn't sold; agent Scott Boras secretly told the Yankees the center fielder would accept less money if the Bombers would make an offer.
So apparently the last sentence of this column was a complete lie. What kind of writing is this? Bob writes one sentence and then contradicts it with the next sentence. It's like he has multiple personalities.
You couldn't blame the Wilpons for revisiting Pedro's $53 million contract and asking themselves: Where did the money go?
Considering the Mets admit they overpaid and overcommitted to Pedro, they got exactly what they bargained for when they signed him. Why would you write questions and then answer them or contradict them? That's not writing a column, that is insanity.
4. Jemele Hill talks about charm school for athletes. Usually when Jemele writes the nation mourns the loss of intelligent and cohesive writing. This week the nation falls asleep due to boredom.
And so on. Goolsby and chef Robert Hewitt put them through a dining exercise. They practiced table manners through a three-course meal. They learned the different forks, which wines go with which foods and that if they're having a bad experience at a restaurant, they should talk to the manager privately instead of causing a disturbance.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz..............................................
When the five hours were up, the rookies couldn't say they hadn't received a complete education. They practiced writing thank-you notes to Lions owner William Clay Ford. They practiced making proper introductions and shaking hands: Lock the V of your hand with the other person's. Wrap the hand and thumb. Squeeze. Pump.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............
You might be thinking the winless Lions should have been studying film instead of salad forks, coverages instead of personal stationary. But consider the bigger picture. Today's professional athlete is under a lot of pressure to perform because he's representing billion-dollar corporations 24 hours a day.
Fantastic point Jemele! Next year instead of being the poorly behaved athletes who exhibit poor performance on the field and a lack of skills they currently are, they will be well behaved ex-athletes who work at Foot Locker.
I understand the premise but many of these rookies are not going to be on a roster in a few years and the only billion dollar corporation Gosder Cherilus is going to be representing in the future is Wal-Mart when he begins his job as a greeter at the age of 34 when he has blown through his millions. Gosder Cherilus sucks and the Lions do too.
I am surprised dumbass Jemele Hill did not call the article "Such Well Behaved Lions."
5. David Schoenfield, whose picture looks like he should get his ass kicked immediately and his Dunk-a-roos stolen at lunch, grades Scott Boras' free agent clients of the past.
He gave grades on a scale of 1-5 Scott Boras heads. How fucking creative! Now give me your lunch.
He gives Kevin Brown's deal two Boras heads and A Rod's deal two Boras heads. Really I have nothing else to add, other than the fact he thinks the Dodgers and the Yankees have gotten the same return on their free agent contracts with Kevin Brown and Alex Rodriguez.
The final tally: Umm, yeah … maybe a little pitching would have been nice. The Rangers have had one winning season in the eight years since the original signing and were so desperate to trade him they actually paid a portion of his Yankees salary. Despite A-Rod's productivity, the size of the deal proved disastrous.
You can't knock A Rod's Boras heads down because of the lack of pitching for the Rangers. Sure they could have used some pitching instead of hitting, but Alex Rodriguez was voted once as MVP with the Rangers and once as MVP with the Yankees. He got paid like the best player in the league and he played like it.
The fact neither team had any good pitching was not A Rod's fault. He also probably accounted for tons of money in merchandising and ticket sales. Why is everyone so down on A Rod?
He gave Andruw Jones' 2001 signing with the Braves three Boras heads despite the fact Scott Boras had nothing to do with the negotiation and the Braves were able to secure one of the best hitting and fielding centerfielders in MLB at below market price. Then he gives the signing of Beltran for $17 million per year three Boras heads. I think if you looked it up, which I did not, Jones probably performed at the same level as Beltran over the length of the contract...and clearly Jones was a better centerfielder.
I realize these are all objective but I love arguing with stupid measurements like this. They mean nothing, yet somehow some editor greenlights an article about it.
6. I have no real problem with the BCS mess. I know everyone likes a nice happy ending with no loose ends and one true champion but it's not going to happen with the current system. Everyone needs to just accept this.
I don't know what it says about the games that are played during the year when Texas beat Oklahoma on a neutral field and yet Oklahoma is still seen as a better team by the BCS computers and the voters. I have heard people say that game was earlier in the year and Oklahoma has proven themselves to be a better team than when these teams played originally. Maybe, but if you can discount early season losses then what about Florida or USC? They lost early in the year and now are clearly better teams than they were then. Why don't they get a shot at the national championship? It seems the current system does dilute the outcome of early season games.
I don't think a playoff is ever going to happen and I really don't know how it could be implemented correctly either. There is just too much money in the BCS and it will always create interest in college football, regardless of negative or positive press, college football always gets coverage.
My biggest beefs are the one month wait for the championship games and the fact all one loss teams that lost early in the year are not considered for the National Championship based on the principle Oklahoma leapfrogged Texas.
7. For fear of agreeing with Gregg Doyel, this would help decide which team is better.
The problem isn't the BCS system that would rate the Sooners ahead of the Longhorns, even by a margin as slim as 45-35 the .0128 that separates them in the BCS rankings.
Tell me, please, what Missouri has done to earn its place in the Big 12 Championship Game. Won the Big 12 North?
I do have to agree another game between the teams with the best BCS rankings, despite division separation, would help decide whether Oklahoma or Texas deserved to be in the National Championship game. They are the two best teams in the Big 12 and another game would give one team two losses and make the decision easier as to who the best team is.
A "conference championship game" that doesn't pit the best two teams in the conference. Brilliant innovation.
I have to agree. Missouri is very weak, though if they beat Oklahoma, that will decide Texas was the better team definitely...and Texas did beat Texas Tech, so they would deserve it.
I have a headache.
8. Michael Phelps is Sportsman of the Year. I don't care what anyone says, I still think he looks like a douchebag. I laugh a little bit at the thought of him pumping himself up to the tunes of Eminem and Lil' Wayne...simply because he looks like the goofiest, whitest guy in the world. I look at him and think, now THIS is a guy who will hit on your girlfriend at a bar and then try to start a fight with you, but only long enough for his security to pull him away.
9. This is the funniest thing I have read on Foxsports.com in a while. I can not look at Chris Fowler in the same way again. We all know Jason Whitlock has a bone to pick with ESPN but this is an absolute classic.
10. Today's UNC Tar Heels fan note of the day: Same guy as last week came in my office yesterday and asked if I had seen UNC defeat UNC-Asheville, and said I did not. He described it in great detail to me, which I did not appreciate, and was bragging that UNC had their scrubs in the game at the beginning of the second half. Here's the conversation from there:
(Me) "They are #1 in the country, so they should therefore beat every single team in the country. You should expect this type of performance."
(Man I work with) "I don't think they are #1 in the country really, I don't know how they came about."
(Me) "A team of experts, coaches and sportswriters all agree UNC is the best team in the country. Don't lower expectations for your team pretending they are just some 'little team that could' when you have 7 players that could play in the NBA on the roster."
(Man I work with) "I don't know about that." ---then he left the room and this is why I have no friends.
You can't come bragging about how great your team is and then try to backtrack and lower expectations immediately after that. UNC should not lose a game this year, they are that good.
Friday, October 31, 2008
0 comments Holy Crap, It's All Over and They're Done!
Jeff Goodman, who looks like Corky from "Life Goes On" in his blog picture, is deeply concerned about the North Carolina Tar Heels ability to win the National Championship. He is in full panic mode.
NO!!!
What could have changed his mind when the Tar Heels are #1 in the country in all the preseason polls and are considered the top men's college basketball team in the country and are having wonderful things written about them? Things like this, this, and this.
First the top-ranked North Carolina Tar Heels lost Marcus Ginyard, their top defensive player, to a stress fracture on his left foot. Now they have lost the nation’s top player in Tyler Hansbrough.
First they lose a Ginyard and now they are losing Hansbrough? God, I hope Roy Williams has enough McDonald's All Americans to replace them:
(Roy Williams looks at roster and sees three McDonald's All Americans on the bench, two of which are over the height of 6'8 and the other is a point guard...immediately stops worrying)
Gosh, I feel miserable for UNC. This is probably the end of the program, losing Hansbrough for the entire year.
The folks at North Carolina aren’t saying how long Hansbrough will miss, but it could be a month or so – which could be a significant early hit for everyone’s No. 1 team.
A month. That is it. Tyler Hansbrough is going to be out for a month of the season worst case scenario at the beginning of the year, which is not when the National Championship is decided by the way, and Jeff Goodman has his panties in a wad over this.
This is a set back for the Tar Heels in trying to not lose a game this year, but that is about it, it's not like Tom Brady getting injured for the entire year. It's like Tom Brady getting injured for a month and having David Garrard as his back up.
Without Hansbrough and Ginyard, it’s highly unlikely the Tar Heels run the table in Maui and also knock off Michigan State in Detroit.
That would stink because the team that wins the Maui Invitational is the only team allowed to participate in the rest of the regular season. All the other teams are forced to "finish" their degrees and wait for next year. It's the end of everything! Life has no meaning now. (Slits wrists with Tyler Hansbrough replica first semester sophomore year official transcript)
If anyone has ever read this blog you know I am not a huge Tyler Hansbrough fan for a variety of reasons. He has been tagged on this site more than probably any other player. Let's be honest though, him missing one month at a maximum is going to allow the younger freshman to get more playing time and that is not a bad thing. About February/March you are going to be reading columns by Corky Goodman about how this has actually helped the Tar Heels this season. It's like Goodman is writing columns now just to set up later columns. Kind of a like a bipolar point/counterpoint.
They may even have trouble with Patrick Patterson and Kentucky on Nov. 18 in Chapel Hill.
Other than Patrick Patterson, who the hell does Kentucky have? I would say UNC has 4 more players on their team better than the next best player on Kentucky. So what if they have trouble with Kentucky? It is one loss. So what if they don't win the Maui Invitational? It is just a preseason tournament.
It's not like UNC is going to have sit beside their television on Selection Sunday hoping their 27-5 record and the fact they won the ACC Tournament is going to be good enough to get them in.
Sure, the Tar Heels are deep – but not deep enough to lose two starters without missing a beat.
Yes, they may "miss a beat" or two, but Hansbrough will be back before December and Marcus Ginyard is coming back in late December. Ginyard is a great defender but is quite replaceable on the offensive end. Quit being a drama queen over this. Sure it is a setback, but it's not like UNC does not have two other players who were highly recruited to take his place. This is their chance to shine and they probably will.
Don’t try and tell me Deon Thompson’s going to be able to stop Luke Harangody if the Tar Heels go up against Notre Dame in the championship game of the Maui Invitational.
Shit, UNC will be lucky if they can figure out how to board the plane without Hansbrough. He is their leader, their heart and soul, the man they go to in the clutch, the guy who hits everyone in the ass with a towel in the locker room (without blinking), and just a great human being. Roy Williams and UNC is nothing without Tyler Hansbrough. Nothing!
If UNC loses to Notre Dame, then that is it. Season over. They will never ever have a chance to redeem themselves. Someone needs to put Corky Goodman on suicide watch.
Freshman Ed Davis is already hurt and isn’t physically ready, anyway. Fellow frosh Tyler Zeller doesn't stand a chance against 'Gody.
Ed Davis hasn't even hit puberty yet. His legs are not even fully grown either. He is actually 5 foot 2 inches, not the 6 foot 8 inches everyone reports. He can't ever guard anyone. It's not like he was the #10 ranked recruit for the 2008 recruiting class.
Tyler Zeller won't be able to guard either. All 7' foot 0 inches of him, could never guard him alone. Did you see him in the McDonald's All American game? Well, if you did his six points were just luck.
I wonder if Jeff Goodman is aware that UNC will not only be playing Patrick Patterson and 'Gody, but the rest of the Notre Dame and Kentucky basketball team, which for the record, is not as good as the rest of the UNC basketball team.
You’ve got to feel badly for Psycho T, though, since he decided to return for his senior campaign because, well, he loves college basketball.
He plays with such passion because he loves the game. All the other college basketball players actually hate the game and are forced to play by their mommies and daddies. While these other people are crying in their bed at night at having to play basketball everyday, Tyler Hansbrough is eating basketballs in one bite, humping cheerleaders at center court, and eating dinner every night at the scorer's table because he loves this game so fucking much.
The positive - if there is a positive in all of this - is that the doctors seem to have caught the injury before it got too serious. This is a precursor to a stress fracture, which is what will sideline Ginyard for about two months.
If there is a positive in all this? Maybe the positive is that the other wonderful basketball players who usually have to sit on the bench are going to be able to play now making the team stronger come NCAA Tournament time, which is the only time that really counts in the basketball season. If Carolina makes it, and that is not a huge if, that is all that matters because Tyler Hansbrough will be back on the court in plenty of time to participate.
They had better, because realistically, the Tar Heels aren't hanging a banner without their Psycho T.
They won't have to do anything in the NCAA Tournament without Tyler Hansbrough, he will be back in plenty of time to participate in the tournament, they will lose a maximum of three games with him gone, and they are still the favorites to win the National Championship. Go breathe into a paper bag for a few minutes. It will all be fine.
NO!!!
What could have changed his mind when the Tar Heels are #1 in the country in all the preseason polls and are considered the top men's college basketball team in the country and are having wonderful things written about them? Things like this, this, and this.
First the top-ranked North Carolina Tar Heels lost Marcus Ginyard, their top defensive player, to a stress fracture on his left foot. Now they have lost the nation’s top player in Tyler Hansbrough.
First they lose a Ginyard and now they are losing Hansbrough? God, I hope Roy Williams has enough McDonald's All Americans to replace them:
(Roy Williams looks at roster and sees three McDonald's All Americans on the bench, two of which are over the height of 6'8 and the other is a point guard...immediately stops worrying)
Gosh, I feel miserable for UNC. This is probably the end of the program, losing Hansbrough for the entire year.
The folks at North Carolina aren’t saying how long Hansbrough will miss, but it could be a month or so – which could be a significant early hit for everyone’s No. 1 team.
A month. That is it. Tyler Hansbrough is going to be out for a month of the season worst case scenario at the beginning of the year, which is not when the National Championship is decided by the way, and Jeff Goodman has his panties in a wad over this.
This is a set back for the Tar Heels in trying to not lose a game this year, but that is about it, it's not like Tom Brady getting injured for the entire year. It's like Tom Brady getting injured for a month and having David Garrard as his back up.
Without Hansbrough and Ginyard, it’s highly unlikely the Tar Heels run the table in Maui and also knock off Michigan State in Detroit.
That would stink because the team that wins the Maui Invitational is the only team allowed to participate in the rest of the regular season. All the other teams are forced to "finish" their degrees and wait for next year. It's the end of everything! Life has no meaning now. (Slits wrists with Tyler Hansbrough replica first semester sophomore year official transcript)
If anyone has ever read this blog you know I am not a huge Tyler Hansbrough fan for a variety of reasons. He has been tagged on this site more than probably any other player. Let's be honest though, him missing one month at a maximum is going to allow the younger freshman to get more playing time and that is not a bad thing. About February/March you are going to be reading columns by Corky Goodman about how this has actually helped the Tar Heels this season. It's like Goodman is writing columns now just to set up later columns. Kind of a like a bipolar point/counterpoint.
They may even have trouble with Patrick Patterson and Kentucky on Nov. 18 in Chapel Hill.
Other than Patrick Patterson, who the hell does Kentucky have? I would say UNC has 4 more players on their team better than the next best player on Kentucky. So what if they have trouble with Kentucky? It is one loss. So what if they don't win the Maui Invitational? It is just a preseason tournament.
It's not like UNC is going to have sit beside their television on Selection Sunday hoping their 27-5 record and the fact they won the ACC Tournament is going to be good enough to get them in.
Sure, the Tar Heels are deep – but not deep enough to lose two starters without missing a beat.
Yes, they may "miss a beat" or two, but Hansbrough will be back before December and Marcus Ginyard is coming back in late December. Ginyard is a great defender but is quite replaceable on the offensive end. Quit being a drama queen over this. Sure it is a setback, but it's not like UNC does not have two other players who were highly recruited to take his place. This is their chance to shine and they probably will.
Don’t try and tell me Deon Thompson’s going to be able to stop Luke Harangody if the Tar Heels go up against Notre Dame in the championship game of the Maui Invitational.
Shit, UNC will be lucky if they can figure out how to board the plane without Hansbrough. He is their leader, their heart and soul, the man they go to in the clutch, the guy who hits everyone in the ass with a towel in the locker room (without blinking), and just a great human being. Roy Williams and UNC is nothing without Tyler Hansbrough. Nothing!
If UNC loses to Notre Dame, then that is it. Season over. They will never ever have a chance to redeem themselves. Someone needs to put Corky Goodman on suicide watch.
Freshman Ed Davis is already hurt and isn’t physically ready, anyway. Fellow frosh Tyler Zeller doesn't stand a chance against 'Gody.
Ed Davis hasn't even hit puberty yet. His legs are not even fully grown either. He is actually 5 foot 2 inches, not the 6 foot 8 inches everyone reports. He can't ever guard anyone. It's not like he was the #10 ranked recruit for the 2008 recruiting class.
Tyler Zeller won't be able to guard either. All 7' foot 0 inches of him, could never guard him alone. Did you see him in the McDonald's All American game? Well, if you did his six points were just luck.
I wonder if Jeff Goodman is aware that UNC will not only be playing Patrick Patterson and 'Gody, but the rest of the Notre Dame and Kentucky basketball team, which for the record, is not as good as the rest of the UNC basketball team.
You’ve got to feel badly for Psycho T, though, since he decided to return for his senior campaign because, well, he loves college basketball.
He plays with such passion because he loves the game. All the other college basketball players actually hate the game and are forced to play by their mommies and daddies. While these other people are crying in their bed at night at having to play basketball everyday, Tyler Hansbrough is eating basketballs in one bite, humping cheerleaders at center court, and eating dinner every night at the scorer's table because he loves this game so fucking much.
The positive - if there is a positive in all of this - is that the doctors seem to have caught the injury before it got too serious. This is a precursor to a stress fracture, which is what will sideline Ginyard for about two months.
If there is a positive in all this? Maybe the positive is that the other wonderful basketball players who usually have to sit on the bench are going to be able to play now making the team stronger come NCAA Tournament time, which is the only time that really counts in the basketball season. If Carolina makes it, and that is not a huge if, that is all that matters because Tyler Hansbrough will be back on the court in plenty of time to participate.
They had better, because realistically, the Tar Heels aren't hanging a banner without their Psycho T.
They won't have to do anything in the NCAA Tournament without Tyler Hansbrough, he will be back in plenty of time to participate in the tournament, they will lose a maximum of three games with him gone, and they are still the favorites to win the National Championship. Go breathe into a paper bag for a few minutes. It will all be fine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)