13 comments Gregg Doyel Loves Change For No Good Reason

I love the NCAA Tournament. It is my favorite three weeks of the year in the sports year honestly. I try to watch as many games as possible and fill out a bracket (yes, just one bracket because filling out multiple brackets feels like cheating to me). There has been talk about the NCAA Tournament expanding to 96 teams and I am not against it, I just see no reason for it. Gregg Doyel likes the idea and wants us to all think about it. Of course he never tells us a benefit of changing the NCAA Tournament around, but who really cares if there is no obvious benefit shown? Let's just do it anyway.

As I may have mentioned before, I like Gregg Doyel, and I like how he can state his opinion that I may not agree with and write a decent column about his opinion. I don't think he really proved his point here, at least not to me. Actually, I think it is borderline dumb that he just writes a column telling us to think about why we don't want the NCAA Tournament expanded but never takes the chance to mention why we SHOULD want the tournament expanded.

(Please ignore the font from when I copy and paste Doyel's comments into this blog. I couldn't get it changed to the original font I use. I think it is just The Man's way of trying to keep me down and prevent me from giving my opinion. Obviously this repression of my opinion through a font I don't like isn't going to work.)

Never in my 20 years as a sports writer have I seen an idea so repulsive that it unified the masses in opposition.

The idea? Jay Mariotti wins a journalism award of any kind for anything related to the crap that puts out on a weekly basis.

Doesn't matter who you are -- conservative or liberal, Duck or Beaver, Tim Tebow or Nittany Lion -- you hate the idea that the NCAA is considering expanding the 65-team men's basketball tournament to 96 teams.

I do not hate the idea. I just don't think the field should be expanded. I like the NCAA Tournament how it is. I believe it works well over a 3 week period. I like seeing a #1 seed play a #16 seed because at some point a #16 seed is going to defeat a #1 seed and it is going to be wonderful to watch...as long as that #1 seed is not my favorite team of course.

3 weeks of the NCAA Tournament is fine. If it lasted any more than that, I believe it would be a bit saturated and lose some of it's annual March luster.

The media hates it as well. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution called it "lunacy." The Washington Post said it's "the worst idea in the history of sports ideas."

That may be overstating the case against tournament expansion, but I don't like the idea personally. I like how Gregg says "the media" like he isn't a part of the media as well.

It's unanimous.

That is two newspapers out of the hundreds in America that don't like the idea. It is not exactly unanimous.

I haven't pined for expansion. I haven't thought about it at all, one way or the other, until last week -- when the NCAA let it leak that it was considering making the move to 96 teams. And then I thought about it.

That's it. He thought about it. Normally I would expect to hear some benefit of expanding the field to 96 teams, but Gregg Doyel doesn't provide us with any of those small little details. What does it matter there may be no initial benefit to expanding the field? YOU AREN'T THINKING ABOUT IT! Think about it and then just keep thinking about it, then you will see...something that Gregg Doyel has seen.

I wonder if this "think about it" idea would work outside of sports?

(Husband speaking to his wife) "What if we added another woman into our marriage?"

(Wife) "Absolutely not. You are sleeping on the couch tonight, you stupid asshole. Why in the world would you want to add another woman to our marriage?"

(Husband) "Clearly, you are against the idea, but I don't think I am. Just think about it."

(Wife) "No."

(Husband) "But you haven't thought about it...because I have. I haven't ever really wanted another wife, until last week, but then I thought about it."

(Wife) "I want a divorce. What would the benefits of having another wife be?"

(Husband) "I don't know the benefits, but you aren't thinking about it. Think. About. It. Then the brilliance will come to you."

(Wife slams front door as she leaves house to immediately go to her attorney's office)

Which makes me the only one.

No. I have thought about the idea and I just don't like it. I think the NCAA Tournament works well the way it is right now. It's exciting the way the tournament is. I don't like the idea of a team getting a bye and I think an expanded field doesn't interest me.

The hatred for this idea is almost universal, yet there appears to be no concrete reason for that hatred, unless you consider tradition a concrete concept.

I don't consider the tradition a concrete concept. I remember when teams got byes in the NCAA Tournament (ok, I have heard about it, but I wasn't alive) and I just don't like the idea. Sometimes in sports, there can be a concept that works so well it probably shouldn't be changed. This is possible. Also, it is weird that Gregg Doyel considers the hatred to have no concrete reasoning considering he isn't giving us concrete reasoning for changing the number of teams who make the NCAA Tournament.

I wasn't against the Wild Card in Major League Baseball because I thought out of 20-something teams only 4 teams playing in the postseason seemed a bit too few teams. I was against the expansion of the NBA Playoffs to a 7 game series in every round because I thought the NBA Playoffs lasted too long anyway and a 5 games series in the opening round was sufficient. I like the movement towards postseason college basketball tournaments because the ACC Tournament takes place in Greensboro sometimes and I can go watch my favorite team play. I see no compelling reason to expand the NCAA Tournament...other than money of course.

You don't want the NCAA tournament to expand because you're used to it the way it is.

You don't have a reason for the NCAA Tournament to expand to 96 teams because you are so busy focusing on the fact you believe no one wants the tournament expanded. It's foolish to take an idea you believe everyone is against and list the reasons why that line of thinking is wrong, but provide no benefits of the opposite line of thinking.

I think I could be convinced, you know, if Gregg Doyel would actually give me a compelling reason to change my mind. But that compelling reason doesn't exist in this column. He just wants us to "think about it."

Never mind that the NCAA tournament has been at 65 teams only since 2001. And that before that, it was at 64 teams for 16 years.

That was a difference in 1 team when the field went from 65 to 64 and the tournament merely added a play-in game which didn't change the overall format of the NCAA Tournament. Adding 32 extra teams would change the overall format of the NCAA Tournament, which I am against until I am given a reason to not be against it.

Before that? It was 53 teams for one year. After being 52 teams for one year.

Again, those were play-in games that didn't change the overall makeup of the NCAA Tournament. Yes, when the field expanded to 64 teams the overall makeup was changed, but in a good way. I believe 64 teams is a good number where quality teams still get in the NCAA Tournament. Raising this number by 32 will result in teams with losing conference records and overall weak resumes being able to enter the NCAA Tournament field. Fine, maybe I am a little bit of an NCAA Tournament elitist, but I don't care.

Sure, this isn't the end of the world, but I want to see 2-3 quality teams left out of the NCAA Tournament because there is a cap on the number of teams that can be selected at 65. I would rather the NCAA Tournament leave out 2-3 good teams then let in 10-12 teams that aren't worthy of selection. Call me an elitist, that's fine, but it is how I feel. For example, this year UNC Tar Heels would probably make the NCAA Tournament if the field expanded to 96 teams. They don't currently deserve to make the NCAA Tournament.

I know percentage wise the NCAA Tournament takes fewer teams than the NBA Playoffs, the NFL Playoffs, and the MLB Playoffs, but this doesn't bother me. Like I said, I could be convinced, but Gregg Doyel is currently doing a poor job of convincing.

And 48 teams for three years. And 40 teams for one year. And that takes us back to just 1979.

Much of the reason for this expansion is because the number of teams that were Division I has increased over this time as well. So there were more teams available to be chosen and the field was opened up even more to include these teams.

You follow? Expansion won't hurt the tradition of the NCAA tournament -- expansion is the tradition of the NCAA tournament. So if tradition is your biggest concern here, I'm sorry, but you just lost.

Screw tradition. I am worried about quality. I went to a Division I school that wasn't bad for its conference but couldn't even come close to competing in the ACC on a regular basis, Appalachian State University. App State would not have a chance against many of the teams in the ACC and are currently 15-10. If they finish 20-11 and make it to the championship game of the Southern Conference Tournament, they would have a reasonable chance to make the NCAA Tournament if the field expanded to 96 teams. (Of course most of the bids would probably go to teams in the major conferences, which is a whole other problem I have with expanding the field.)

Sure, I would love to see this, but I don't know if I would like to watch them get beaten in the 1st round. I think they would get beaten, maybe I am wrong. I am not going to quit watching college basketball if the field expands, I may enjoy it, but I still like the field at 64 teams.

There's not a single valid argument against the NCAA tournament growing to 96 teams.

There hasn't been a single benefit of expanding the NCAA Tournament given by Gregg.

But it'll water down the regular season and conference tournaments!

I think conference tournaments are already watered down. For me, they are there just to have a tournament between teams in the same conference for bragging rights. I like going to them and they are entertaining, that's the only reason for their existence I need.

You mean more than those things already are watered down? George Mason beat nobody of national stature during the 2005-06 regular season, then lost in the semifinal of the unsung Colonial Athletic Association tournament, and just barely made it into the 2006 NCAA tournament, probably as the last at-large team into the field

This is the typical effort by a writer to use the outlier to try and prove the point that this type of thing happens all the time. It doesn't. George Mason's run in the NCAA Tournament was a unprecedented run that I am not sure will be replicated in my lifetime. It was an outlier in a tournament where runs by teams like George Mason rarely happen.

George Mason went to the Final Four, thereby demonstrating the impotence of the regular season and the conference tournament.

Again, this one example doesn't in itself demonstrate the impotence of the regular season and the conference tournament. There are plenty of teams that win their conference tournament and have good records in the regular season that advance far in the NCAA Tournament. There is a reason a seed higher than #8 has never won the NCAA Tournament. Generally, good teams win the NCAA Tournament, not mid-major conference teams that don't win their win conference.

And you'll continue to do so if the NCAA tournament grows to 96 teams. And you know it.

Absolutely. I would watch the NCAA Tournament if the field grew to 128 teams. I just like to watch it. That's not the point. The point is the NCAA needs to figure out how many teams are the optimal amount of teams to include in the NCAA Tournament to maximize competition and not allow inferior teams into the tournament. I am just not sure that number is 96.

The tournament is three weeks as it is. Last thing I want is for it to grow to four weeks.

I have to admit, this is part of my reasoning. I start to get a little weary of the NCAA Tournament talk after the Elite Eight. At that point, my favorite team (lately) has been out of the tournament and the games are going to be good, but I have watched and talked about college basketball for three weeks (including the conference tournament). I don't know if I could do another week. It takes so much of my focus to watch the games and follow the games, I don't know if I could do it for 4 straight weeks.

And why is that? If you love March Madness at three weeks -- and you do -- what's wrong with four?

The coverage could become saturated and the excitement for the tournament may end up being a little muted. I feel this way during the NBA Playoffs, at a certain point, I just want to know who will be in the NBA Finals. I think there reaches a limit of college basketball and three weeks is the perfect limit.

Maybe I would end up really liking 4 weeks of coverage, I don't know, but I do know once the NCAA allows 96 teams in the NCAA Tournament, there is no going back. The NCAA can't make the field smaller. We've seen this in every sport. Once major sports expand the number of teams in the league it is hard as hell to contract teams. I realize these are two different things, but once the NCAA Tournament goes to 96 teams, regardless of whether that works or not, it will be stuck there for a while. I am not against change, I just don't always mess with a good thing.

But the No. 1 seeds will get a first-round bye. That's not fair.

This is absolutely not fair. I would rather watch 200 straight 108-69 #1 seed versus #16 seed games than give the #1 seeds a bye in the NCAA Tournament. This is just how I feel and I am not sure anyone can change my mind about this. I like that no team gets a bye or gets a chance to rest because they had a good record during the regular season.

Don't tell anyone, but the top seeds have had byes before. You know how UCLA won 10 NCAA titles in 12 years from 1964-75? The Bruins received a first-round bye for each of the first nine championship runs.

I absolutely know this and I absolutely hate this. Simply because top seeds had byes in the past doesn't mean they should have byes in the future. Those UCLA teams were loaded and they were good teams, but they only had to win 4 basketball games to win the National Championship. I don't like that, I think they should have had to play the 1st round game as well.

So as much as I respect those UCLA teams, they were playing during a team when there wasn't much college basketball parity and they didn't have to win as many games as a current NCAA college basketball team does to win the NCAA Tournament. I don't like the fact those #1 seeds used to receive byes.

But 96 teams? I don't want to see those crappy teams in the tournament!

There you go. This may be my biggest problem with the expanded NCAA Tournament proposal. The other 32 teams the tournament would add probably aren't terrible, but they are also not great either.

You won't for long. The crappiest teams will be gone after one game, two tops.

So what's the point of having them in the NCAA Tournament then? Isn't the tournament supposed to determine the best college basketball teams in the country? So if a team clearly isn't one of the best college basketball teams in the country and didn't win their conference tournament, why should that team be invited?

But those games will have that same do-or-die feel that defines March Madness and makes us watch. George Mason, Davidson, Valparaiso, Kent State, UW-Milwaukee, Bucknell, Vermont are just some of the "crappy" teams -- those are your words, not mine --

Clearly this is tongue-in-cheek because "crappy" was Gregg's word and he is being funny here...so I won't rip into it, but it goes against everything I feel in the 5% chance he isn't trying to be funny.

that turned out to be not so crappy in recent years. Crappy teams are what make the NCAA tournament memorable. The more crappy teams, the better.

I don't think I would have a problem with the expansion of the NCAA Tournament if there weren't byes. I hate byes. I love to watch basketball, so I would be satisfied with a 96 team field, I just don't want the NCAA to mess with a good thing.

But I'm against expanding the tournament to 96 teams. I just am.

I know you are. My initial reaction was the same as yours: The NCAA tournament wants to go to 96 teams? That's ridiculous.

But, I wonder what caused Gregg Doyel to change his mind about this? Let's find out...

But then I thought about it. Actually, really thought about it.

I can't help but wonder why Gregg Doyel thought about it he couldn't find and express one benefit of expanding the field to 96 teams? If you really want to convince someone this is a good idea, wouldn't it be an even better idea to include a benefit of expanding the field? Rather than just telling everyone to "think about it?"

So here I am, asking you to do the same thing.

I tell you what. I will think about it as soon as Gregg Doyel gives me one good benefit that would come from expanding the 65 team field. He can't do it. So the mysterious notion of "thinking about it" and coming up with some unnamed (at least by Gregg Doyel) realization that would change my mind doesn't seem likely. When Gregg was thinking about it, what made him realize a 96 team tournament was a good idea? That's what I want to know.

What kind of writing tries to convince an audience of a point of view by not listing the benefits of that point of view...and is a persuasive article? Definitely not this one.

Here is another decent, but brief, discussion of this topic.

-Ray Ratto thinks John Wall should stay in college to avoid the New Jersey Nets. I happen to be one of the few people on the planet who think New Jersey would be a good fit in this offseason for a marquee free agent and John Wall if he gets drafted by them. Sure they suck but look at this way:

If the Nets could draft Wall, they could trade Devin Harris for another player or try to keep Harris on the team and have him play a hybrid shooting/point guard position he probably wouldn't excel at. Doesn't the thought of Harris, Wall and Brook Lopez on the same team feel like a good core overall though? I am sure they could try to work out the logistics to make it work, but if they couldn't...

Now imagine the Nets are able to lure a big name free agent and trade Devin Harris for another decent player. Now look at the lineup with say Joe Johnson and this trade (I don't think the 76ers would go for this, but I am trying to make a point, not a 100% realistic trade, though this trade could be realistic):

Starters

John Wall
Joe Johnson
Andre Iguodala
Brook Lopez
Yi Jianlian

Bench

Courtney Lee
Terrence Williams
Jason Smith

Sure it's not the strongest team in the NBA, my point is that the Nets are going to have cap room and if they get Wall, they have an asset other teams will want in Devin Harris. Oh yeah, they also now have a billionaire Russian owner, which can only be a good thing. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad to get drafted by the Nets if you are John Wall.

15 comments Random Thoughts: A-Rod-Less Edition

I wasn't sure what to put up here today because no article was bad enough to have caught my eye, but being the obsessive complusive person I am, I had to put something up here. I used to do this thing when I first started this blog called Random Thoughts which basically was pretty similar to the "Ten Things..." I do except (a) it is not numbered, (b) I seem to be more opinionated, and (c) it was not called "Ten Things..." and those seem to be the only differences. So I thought I would do that today, because if there is anything in this world I am good at, it is giving my opinion. Because I have made some huge technology upgrades since the last time I did this, I wanted to use bullets beside each point instead of those cheap ass dash (-) things I use, but I tried that and fucking hated it. So we are stuck with cheap ass dash (-) things, but I will make them bold. Don't act like you aren't excited.

- I have been following Peter King's Twitter account and I have found it is a complete and utter waste. The things that annoy me about his MMQB column, like where he does shout outs to individuals or answers a question but doesn't show the question, is magnified 1,000 times on his Twitter account. We end up with shit like this:

@DownUnda2008 : I hope EVERYONE saved a couple of bucks for Dr. Z's auction ... it's at cmarket.com, by the way. look state-by-state, NJ.
10:34 PM May 4th from web in reply to DownUnda2008

@Mort2u : Hey Mort! That is fantastic. You are an old softie. How goes life with you? Hope you are well.
10:08 PM May 4th from web in reply to Mort2u

@willyh23 : I doubt they'll deal for any receiver now, not after taking two in the first three rounds.
9:56 PM May 4th from web in reply to willyh23

@KJF16 : How many more players than Jason Peters, Jeremy Maclin and LeSean McCoy--the great value pick of the draft--do you want?
9:55 PM May 4th from web in reply to KJF16

@TCMIN_B : Thanks a lot. I'm humbled by it.
9:54 PM May 4th from web in reply to TCMIN_B

@gwardiii : It's a good question. But remember: Favre was playing well through 11 weeks last year till he got hurt.

I guess it is a good thing for these writers to be on Twitter because they can answer questions from the fans but it is annoying because I don't always know what the people asked Peter. I would think a better use of Twitter would be for a columnist to break news or provide links like Bill Simmons does. I actually enjoy his Twitter because he provides links and says stupid shit that annoys me. I enjoy being annoyed. Peter King just answers questions from fellow Tweeters, which just frustrates the hell out of me.

And oh yes, Mort2u is Chris Mortensen and he actually does Twitter like it should be done for someone who breaks sports news stories (of course his stories are not always accurate or true, but that is a different discussion):

I heard interesting Favre's "state-of-mind" angle on why he may hire a QB coach soon to work with him. will talk on M & M and SC.
17 minutes ago from web

I know I am always piling on Peter King, but what the hell does he do? He doesn't break football news stories, he is not responsible for any type of analysis, and he can't provide any type of insight into what is going on in many situations in the NFL. He basically goes around and pals around with NFL players and coaches and then writes about it. I guess he gets the "inside scoop" on some stuff but I would think there is a limited market for those who really care how Rex Ryan got Bart Scott to New York, how great the Eagles draft was or how the Jets got the trade for Mark "The Bust" Sanchez. Maybe I am wrong.

- John Wall is turning into another Stephon Marbury or Steve Francis, just younger and from North Carolina, not New York or Maryland. I profiled (not really, I don't know of another word...but "profiled" sounds like I was doing actual journalism) him a few months ago and I know there has been a bunch of spin out there convincing everyone he is such a great kid and just wants to be loved. This may or may not be true. He has his choice of colleges where he can play and every team wants him. So what does he do?

He commits a fucking B&E. In one year, he is going to have more money than he knows what to do with (well actually not if you believe those who claims athletes are in the 60% income tax bracket and it is easy to spend that much money), but he decides to break and enter into a house right before he needs to make a decision for which college to choose.

Between him, Josh Hamilton, and Evan Rachel Wood, if you are from Raleigh, North Carolina there is a good chance you will either be weird, a drug addict, or get in trouble with the police.

- Look at this picture of Renaldo Sydney. Tell me that is not Zach Randolph ten years ago. 6 foot 10 inches, 250 pounds with 23% body fat...it's him. Clearly Randolph is performing some time traveling shit like we can all see on Lost.

Oh, and that goofy white guy who is getting ready to get dunked on? He's a Duke recruit of course and his name is Ryan Kelly...he also dates Bill Cowher's daughter and I am going to probably hate him. His entrance in the starting lineup will put potentially three unathletic white guys in the starting lineup next year with Scheyer, Singler, and Kelly. That's way too many unathletic white guys for my comfort level. Of course the fact they still have no inside presence or a point guard probably will affect them more when they get lose in the 2nd round of the NCAA Tournament. I curse the way I was born, if I had only jumped on the UNC bandwagon at a young age I would be happier in regards to sports.

- I hate that I came in three days late on this, but JemeHill and Scoop Jackson broke down the second round of playoff games for us. They also shared some "insights" as only they can provide insight. Remember, you and I are not basketball experts so though some of these "insights" may seem borderline retarded, they are in fact genius.

Question: The Magic went 6-3 this season against the Cavs, Celtics and Lakers. How do you evaluate their title chances right now?

Considering they are one of 8 teams left, I would say I give them a 12.5% chance of winning the NBA Title. I don't want to get too technical though.

Jemele Hill: I know what the regular-season records say, but there's something fishy about the Magic.

I know what the incredibly large and potentially accurate sample size of 82 games say................but I am going to ignore that and go with a "feeling" I have that could be undigested tacos or my stomach could be telling me the Magic are not that good.

When they make 3s, they're unstoppable. When they don't, they're prone to getting knocked out like Ricky Hatton.

Thanks, JemeHill. This statement can pretty much be true for every team in the NBA.

Scoop Jackson: Plus, it bothers me that too often -- and this goes back to the playoffs last year -- Dwight Howard can have big games and they'll still lose. Something's not right about that, and I'm not sure they know how to fix it.

Usually the reason that Dwight Howard is having a big game is because he is taking more shots, usually I would assume he is taking more shots because other players for the Magic aren't hitting their shots or he has a favorable matchup at center, and if other players for the Magic aren't scoring I would say that is greatly decreasing the Magic's chances of winning the game since Dwight Howard probably can't outscore the other team by himself.

I think the Magic do know how to fix this and that is to have other players score.

Question: Which second-round series will have you glued to your television set?

Jemele Hill: Celtics-Magic. These teams split their regular-season series. Just based off matchups, all indications point to a seven-gamer. Lots of intrigue here because both teams have serious questions that need to be answered. Do the Celtics have anything left? Are the Magic for real? Can the Celtics return to the Eastern Conference finals without Kevin Garnett?

Yes, clearly these are two flawed teams that have some major questions that need to be answered and it should be a good series. Let's watch JemeHill ruin any good will she has built up with me.

Plus, the winner of this series sets up a potentially terrific matchup with the Cavs (yes, I'm already putting them past Atlanta)

Almost there...So the Cavs are clearly the best team in the Eastern Conference because they had no trouble in the 1st round with the Pistons and will easily beat the Hawks? Sounds to me like they are the absolute favorites to win the Eastern Conference then...

since both teams are capable of beating Cleveland.

I get that the Magic were 6-3 against the Cavs, Celtics, and Lakers this year but I don't see the logic on how two flawed teams (according to JemeHill) could beat the Cavs when the Cavs have homecourt advantage, are 39-2 at home this year, and JemeHill doesn't expect them to be challenged in the first two rounds of the playoffs. I don't get how JemeHill can think the Cavs are so superior in the Eastern Conference they will breeze through the first two rounds but the Magic/Celtics (both flawed teams according to JemeHill) could beat them. Maybe I am dismissing the matchups between Orlando-Cleveland or Boston-Cleveland too easily, but I can't see how JemeHill thinks either team can beat Cleveland. Especially if she considers Cleveland superior to other teams and she has major questions about Boston/Orlando. It seems to me a team that breezes through the first two rounds should also breeze through two teams that have major questions. This is not the only time these two seem to contradict their previous opinions either.

Scoop Jackson: Boston-Orlando will be fun. Despite what I said earlier, the Magic have a shot to win.

Great analysis Scoop. Here's Scoop's previous statement:

They are inconsistent, too inconsistent to have faith they can win or challenge for the title. Not with teams like the Cavs, Lakers, Nuggets and Celtics still alive.

"Ignore what I said earlier about the Magic being too inconsistent to beat the Celtics, I have changed my mind in the past two minutes. I was wrong then...but I am not wrong now."

This is the high quality analysis you get at ESPN.com. Be jealous other sports web sites.

Scoop Jackson: Jemele, just read my last column. Anyone that believes that the Rockets are better without T-Mac is as clueless as Stacey Dash.

Pop culture reference!

In the case of McGrady against the Lakers, the Rockets will miss his ability to counter Kobe's production, and they will miss his ability to win games with a single shot.

Oh yes, only Tracy McGrady can hit the magical 100 point shot during a game to singlehandedly win a game for the Rockets.

Also, these numbers in no way match Kobe Bryant's production this year. This is a big miss Scoop. Tracy McGrady is not Kobe Bryant. Scoop Jackson had jumped on the Houston Rockets train at the beginning of the year and I am afraid he has a trumped up opinion of their talents.

ESPN: Where Analysis Good Doesn't Happen

- FJMariotti covered this article yesterday which contained the wonderful Jeff Francouer quote:

"If on-base percentage is so important, then why don't they put it up on the scoreboard?" Francoeur says.

I thought this would be a great time to bust out with the Jeff Francouer article I have been saving for when he pissed me off. This man is absolutely clueless as to how to make adjustments at the plate and is just full of excuses. This is me Gregg Doyel-ing Jeff Francoeur.

It was a different Jeff Francoeur who took the field Wednesday for the first full-squad workout of 2009. He’s thinner. He has a new swing. Mostly he’s different because he bears a layer of scar tissue.

His OBP is now a hefty .303 up from .294 last year. Not to mention he has an OPS of a hefty .740. He's a changed man!

That said, nothing could have prepared Francoeur for the rancor directed his way by fans he believed had come to really, really like him.

How fucking naive can you be? It's not like the fans were going to like him no matter what the hell he did. The fans did not like him because he had a pretty smile or reminded them of their cousin. They liked him because he played the sport of baseball well and helped the team win games. When he stops doing that and actually contributes to losses, the fans don't like him anymore. I would like to see him play in New York for a season or two.

“In this day and age, it’s, ‘What have you done for me lately?’ and you’re always going to hear the negative,” Francoeur said. “But I was a lost dog for much of last season. I didn’t know how to handle it.”

Francouer could have handled it by actually learning to hit a baseball better and making adjustments at the plate instead of making excuses. He is a replacement level player. He's a great defensive right fielder but has no speed and strikes out twice as much as he walks this year...and that is an improvement over the previous years.

Recalling the demotion, Francoeur said: “It was a wakeup call. It made me mentally tough … People ask me about arbitration, and I say, ‘After what I went through last year, I can handle anything.’ ”

Well that is good, because all the the Braves organization wanted was to make sure Francoeur became a much tougher person, they had no interest in him actually earning his paycheck and hitting a baseball at a level that could compete with any normal AAA RF.

He didn't "go through" anything. He refused to make any adjustments to how he was being pitched, showed zero plate discipline, and overall did not want to take responsibility for any of this happening. He still doesn't.

Francouer also got a massive contract raise to $3.375 million for his worst season as a professional. You have to love the MLB arbitration system.

“I was bitter for a while,” he said Wednesday, “but last year was last year and that’s where I’m keeping it.”

I absolutely hate his attitude. He acts like others were doing this to him and he was not bringing his failure upon himself. He has the talent (I am actually starting to question this) but he doesn't have the will to make adjustments to how pitchers pitch him. His quote about OBP just further proves it to me.

That numbers tells how often you are on base, which is how a team scores runs, which is how a team wins games. That number is beyond important to a team's success.

He unleashed a familiar full-bore Frenchy smile. “Last year,” he said, “is a distant memory.”

Unfortunately there is still this year.

- I am with Pete Prisco. I don't see how signing Brett Favre makes the Vikings a better team. Brett Favre is not now and never was the type of quarterback you want for a team with a great defense and running game. He has too much "fun," which means too many interceptions and stupid passes.

I am not a Sage Rosenfels fan by any stretch of the imagination but I would even say at this point he is a better option than Brett Favre...especially since the Vikings have already traded a 4th round pick for him. I realize Favre played well for the first 11 games of last year, but he needs surgery that he has not had and he is creeping up on the age of 40. If signing Brett Favre is about selling tickets, the Vikings should just book better halftime shows or they should have signed Terrell Owens, which actually would have helped the team. If signing Brett Favre is about pissing off the Packers, they should have just made a bunch of jokes about cheese. If signing Brett Favre is about making the team better, I don't think it achieves that goal.

The Vikings are one good quarterback away from being a very good playoff team, but I just don't think Favre is that quarterback this year, and even if he is, what about next year?

I guess Brad Childress is not thinking about next year because he is too focused on keeping his job this year.

- This article about Bill Simmons is old but I still think it is relevant today. It probably speaks to what I think about his writing and where he used to be and where he is going as a writer better than any other column about him I have read. Granted, there haven't been too many articles written about him but I still find this one the best.

I do find it funny when you go to Bill's Twitter page the people who suscribe to his page are called "followers." That is absolutely perfect for him.

- I got through today without providing an A-Rod update. I wonder how many more days I could make it? I have some articles for tomorrow, none about A-Rod which is always good, I may have the final count on our "Easterbrook challenge" from last week as well...unless I forget to add them up, which is likely. I hope I gave us enough to comment on today...

5 comments Everything That Is Wrong With College Basketball Recruiting In One Neat Package

I am tired of the A-Rod circus (I have even given up on calling him A-Roid because I am bored with that also...at least for today) and that is pretty much what everyone is writing about these days. It seems like I will have the rest of Spring Training to dissect articles about that.

I love college basketball but I hate college basketball recruiting. It is so dirty, I don't like to know anything about how my favorite basketball team lands recruits. John Wall is the consensus #1 recruit in the 2009 class and he is also the perfect example of why college basketball recruiting sucks. His story has got shady "advisors," a 18 year old with a massive ego, the brother of his high school coach being hired by a college team that is recruiting him, a "friend" of the student goes to a nearby college of said college team, and the student-athlete that will be in college for a maximum of 7 months. Pretty much everything I hate about college basketball.

Less than an hour earlier, the senior was, as usual, imposing his will on the basketball court. In his lean, 6-foot-4 frame is packed the ability to dribble a ball at a sprinter's speed before delivering a perfect pass, to throw down a one-handed jam from eye level with the rim, to weave through opposing players to get to the basket.

Think of Derrick Rose and that is what John Wall appears to be. Put in the questions I had last year about Michael Beasley's maturity and you have what John Wall is...at least in my mind. I am one of those traditional ol' guys who thinks a player should be able to go to the NBA out of high school, but if they choose to go to college, they have to stay for 2-3 years. Sort of like how baseball currently does it. I don't like one-and-done players because I think it is bad for the university and for the player. The university gets a student-athlete who is going to quit his classes in April to get ready for the NBA Draft and the player has to pretend like he actually wants to go to school for a year. It is a charade that I think doesn't create anything positive for either party.

I think a player has every right to go to the NBA after high school if that person would like, but I also think if he chooses to go to college, he has to stay there for a certain time period, and I don't think one year is enough.

Finishing a spectacular play, he will often smile, the game a means of expressing himself with absolute clarity and self-assurance.

This kid knows he can play basketball...and that is part of the problem because so does everyone around him.

After two years at Garner High and a brief stint at Broughton, which cut him from the team, he is in his fifth year at his third high school, having repeated his sophomore year.

This kid is a stud player, so it makes you wonder what he has done to get cut from his high school team.

Around him, Wall hears both the pitches of college coaches eager to land him and the suggestions of mentors eager to nudge him to the place they feel most suits him.

My favorite thing about his "mentors" is that they act as if they are looking out for him, by keeping out the bad elements, but they are really getting an ego trip out of helping a top athlete choose his college destination. They will probably use their experience with this player and parlay it into something lucrative for themselves when he goes to the NBA. Many of these "mentors" are actually looking to make a dime off the player for their advice and guidance. It's one of the few times taking advantage of a kid who has few role models is widely accepted.

"Yeah, it's all my decision," said the player, who's expected to announce his intentions sometime after his season, likely in April.

If you believe this....well, you shouldn't.

He is being primarily recruited by Baylor, Miami, Duke, Kansas, Memphis, Oregon and N.C. State. The only team among these that has not made him a scholarship offer is Duke.

But John Wall doesn't come without conditions. Like Rose, he will be "one-and-done," playing college ball as a freshman before jumping to the pros, he and his closest advisers say.

If Duke and Kansas were really serious about their programs being seen as having student-athletes, they would quit pursuing him based solely on this issue. That is my opinion. Both programs in the past have disliked recruiting one-and-done players because it takes up a scholarship for kids who actually want to play basketball AND be in school. Maybe they have changed their mind in this case.

At times, his attitude needs no adjective -- it suffices to say he has one -- so he needs a nurturing, thick-skinned coach, not a my-way-or-the-highway absolutist, say Beckwith and Brian Clifton, the director of D-One Sports, Wall's Greensboro- based summer-league team.

So basically his two main advisors don't want Wall to have a coach who is willing to put up with Wall's constant shitty attitude and play. Doesn't it sound like he is going to be an incredibly wonderful NBA player to build a team around? Directly in the line of Stephon Marbury and Steve Francis, we now have John Wall.

I realize I am being hard on an 18 year old kid but I don't think coaches in the NBA or college should defer to their players. Mostly I believe college coaches should never defer because college is an opportunity to learn how to play basketball at a higher level and it prepares you for the NBA. Suffice to say I think college coaches should have it my-way-or-the-highway because they are the experts.

He will thrive in a fast-paced system that encourages rather than squashes individual creativity, they say.

Basically just let him do whatever the hell he wants to do and leave him alone.

More than anyone else, Wall said, he trusts Clifton and Beckwith to help him make the choice.

I see this as the problem. Not to mention just a few lines up Wall was quoted as saying the decision was completely his, but now his "advisors" are helping.

To any college coach who'd rather not deal with the two dominant male figures in Wall's life, the message is clear: No hard feelings, but that coach would be advised to look elsewhere.

It doesn't take a genius to see these "mentors" are leeching themselves to this poor kid. I don't give a shit if they are his high school coaches or what they are. No hard feelings but these coaches need to let the kid make the decision and quit "advising" him.

What's wrong with his mom, uncle, or some other family member advising him?

"I think he should go to Baylor," Clifton said.

There, he said, Wall would benefit from the team's fast, wide-open style of play and the "unassuming" nature of a head coach, Scott Drew, who wouldn't put his ego ahead of Wall's.

Yeah, you wouldn't want that coach, who knows a lot more about basketball, to put his ego ahead of his 18 year old student-athlete who is going to be there for exactly one year and then leave for the NBA. If I were Scott Drew, I would read this quote and immediately stop recruiting Wall. Of course, I am sure he has a great reason he is recruiting him that doesn't have anything to do with the fact he wants to keep his job and win games.

It also happens that Clifton's younger brother and former D-One coach, Dwon, was hired last summer as Baylor's director of player development, and one of Wall's best friends, former Garner High and D-One teammate Tyrone "T.Y." Williams, has enrolled at nearby McLennan Community College in Waco, Texas, as a scholarship player.

This is laughable. Baylor could have looked for ANY high school coach, college administrator, or any person in the world to fill this position, and it just so happened they chose the ex-coach of Wall's team, who also happens to be one of his "advisor's" relatives. This is such horseshit. I have no problem with Wall, I have a problem with how slimy the system is and how these "advisors" weasel their way into the system. It makes me root against this kid.

Dwon Clifton, 28, also has another tie to Baylor: assistant coach Matt Driscoll coached him at Clemson.

Well that explains it then. Even though Clifton graduated from UNC-Greensboro and played his last two years of college basketball there, Driscoll was so impressed by Clifton's two seasons at Clemson and his ability to coach a roaming HS team for 2 year, he felt he was qualified to be Director of Player Development at a major program three years after graduating college. I don't have any statistics but at Oklahoma in a similar position there is a guy who has more experience than having coached a roaming HS team for two years. The other site I went to, Texas A&M chose an alumni who was a distinguished basketball player and has coached in college or high school basketball since 1977. I have a feeling if I looked up some statistics they would say that Clifton is one of the most underqualified people for this job compared to the background of other people who have a similar position at other schools.

I'm just saying...

Clearly, Clifton is offended by the assumption that colleges and fans who don't know the player at all belong on a higher moral plain than he does.

I have no idea how this pertains. When in doubt, get morally offended I guess.

"If John Wall right now stopped playing basketball, and he was no longer the prospect that people thought, there would be no concern whatsoever over where he went to college or if he went to college," Clifton said.

He would be treated exactly like every other person trying to get in college in the United States and around the world. The fact that Wall would be normal without college basketball does not make Clifton's "advice" that much more necessary.

But then you have people around him like my brother and myself and his high school coach, who do care about him, who are concerned about whether he is successful in life or not, and just because other people recognize and notice him now, you're supposed to relinquish any types of thoughts and hopes and dreams that you have for this kid and step back and listen to somebody who knows nothing about him?

Notice in this whole quote there was absolutely nothing about what John Wall wants or the hopes and dreams he may have for himself. It's all about the hopes and dreams three grown adults have for John Wall and how they want him to be successful. If they were really concerned about him being successful in life, they would encourage him to attend four years of college. That goes without saying though, even though I did just say it.

So, the hiring wasn't done to lure him to Baylor?

"Oh, I think it was," Wall said. "You know, whichever AAU coach gets a job in college is hoping that he gets the point guard or the best player from that organization with him."

I get the feeling Wall doesn't know who to trust. He knows Dwon was hired to get him to Baylor, so how can he feel like his "mentors" are giving him the correct advice? He can't.

Although the NCAA prohibits the hiring of a high school or prep school coach with the intent of enrolling an athlete, intent is difficult to prove, and in fact, college head coaches routinely hire assistants with ties to recruits.

This is near impossible to prove.

Tiffany Williams said her son, one of four players on McLennan's 15-man roster from outside Texas, found out about the school "through John and his D-One coach."

This is John's good friend who goes to school near Baylor. He found out about the school through John and Clifton, whose brother works for Baylor now and Baylor is just down the road from the school Williams is currently attending. I feel dirty just writing this.

There is nothing inherently wrong with going to a school near to where your friend goes to school, but I have a feeling this was all set up. Why would a kid from North Carolina go to a junior college in Texas?

What concerns Clifton and Beckwith more than others' interpretation of their motives is the prospect of their protege winding up somewhere they feel he might not fit.

To put it another way: They're worried about him going to Duke.

That would be awful. Why go to a school 30 miles from where your entire family is located that has a tradition of winning and actually graduating players when you can go to a school 1,500 miles away that is mostly known for having a player that killed another player?

"It would behoove him to be in a situation that he would be able to play for a coach who has a more free-flowing offense, who is going to afford him the opportunity to be expressive and to do the things that he needs to do [to prepare for the NBA]," Clifton said.

Because in the NBA, they play completely like it is street ball. You see players throwing the ball off seats into the basket, players get street nicknames, and they go on tour around the country showing off their moves. Wait, that's not the NBA? They actually run plays and have an offense that the point guard has to stay within in the NBA? And Wall will have no choice about what team chooses him, so he is probably going to have to get used to doing things a coach's way and not free lancing any chance he gets?

Shhhh.....don't tell Brian Clifton, I want this to be a huge surprise for him in two years.

"I'm going to say, 'Look, this is what John's going to do. Now, what are you going to do when he does that?' " Beckwith said. "When you're playing Carolina and things aren't going well, when you take him out of the game and he mumbles, 'I shoulda gone to Carolina,' which to you is disrespectful and it's not the right thing to say ... how long are you going to sit him out? If he's going to be done for the year, then don't take him."

I don't think a coach would sit a player for the rest of the year based on one mistake. I like how Beckwith says that mumbling under your breath at the coach MAY BE considered disrespectful by the coach. I think that IS disrespectful to any coach. At some point a player has to take ownership of his mistakes and admit there are things he doesn't know about the game of basketball. Players who don't want to be taught are not going to succeed in my opinion.

Duke point guard Nolan Smith, a sophomore, was asked what he would tell a prospect used to creating individually in high school.

"The main thing I'd tell him is, 'Get ready to play team basketball, but keep your style of play. Yet, play your style of play within the Duke style of play.' It's something you have to learn while you're here. You can't really tell somebody how it is until they get here."

Yeah, ask Nolan Smith what it takes. Take it from the guy who had 9 assists in 7 conference games, he really knows what to do. I think Nolan Smith is transferring after this year. That is just a side note.

"If we have J.J. Redick, we're going to look to get him the ball, get him shots," Collins said. "If we've got Jason Williams, we're going to [let him create].

"If we have DeMarcus Nelson, we're never going to teach him to shoot a jump shot or shoot foul shots. If we have Kyle Singler we will never take him out of the game and will force him to guard guys who he absolutely can not guard under the basket, then encourage him to take jump shots and not drive to the basket because he is too tired from playing defense...oh and we are going to play him 38 minutes per game, even though we have a perfectly good freshman on the bench who can spell him for a few minutes. We're Duke and apparently lost a clue on how to design a rotation of players to put in the game back in 2004."

I am surprised Coach K did not play 8 guys from the U.S. Olympic team and just bench the rest of the guys. The team dodged a bullet because I bet he wanted Kobe Bryant guarding power forwards. I wonder who talked Coach K out of that idea.

Beckwith said he likes Memphis, Baylor and N.C. State as good fits for Wall, who noted that his mother, Frances Pulley, has been a State fan "since she was born."

So Beckwith and Clifton like Baylor and his mom likes N.C. State. I wonder who John Wall likes? Sadly, we may never find out.

"At N.C. State, I think they've got to get a little bit better. I don't see any way around that," he said. "The personnel they have now, I can't see them [running] baseline to baseline. They just can't do it with the guys that they have."

The one thing N.C. State has been missing that would make them a great team is a point guard and John Wall could be that guy. Wall can't go there because they don't run the offense he likes to run and apparently his "mentors" have no interest in him learning a different way to run the offense.

Wall better hope he gets drafted by the New York Knicks or else he is going to be lost in the NBA if he only wants to run an up tempo offense. Basically he is going to have to learn to run a half court offense at some point and I think college would be a great chance to do that.

I think he should go to N.C. State.

For example, Clifton said North Carolina was interested in Wall but tersely noted that D-One has no relationship with UNC.

So Clifton doesn't think Wall should go to UNC, which is one of the most if not the most prestigious basketball school in the country, because his AAU team has no relationship with the team. This is clearly in the best interest of John.

When he brought a previous prospect to Chapel Hill, he said, "the feedback I got was, 'Roy [Williams] doesn't want to deal with you because he doesn't deal with AAU guys.' "

I respect ol' Roy Boy for this. He recruits players, and recruits those players exceptionally well. He doesn't need to talk to AAU guys because they are not the player or the player's family.

I realize this is how it is now in college basketball but it still feels slimy to me. I am not the biggest UNC fan in the world but if I got interest from there, I would have interest in them regardless of who my AAU coach is. Not considering UNC because D-One doesn't have a relationship with them does not sound like it is in the best interest of John Wall.

If they really cared about Wall, they would step back from being his main advisors so UNC or another school that may be a good fit for him could have more interest in him...but that would never happen because that is not what is in the best interest of Clifton or Beckwith.

Broughton coach Jeff Ferrell declined to discuss why he cut Wall. Brock Young, a guard on the team and now at East Carolina, said it was a behavior issue, adding that he and other players felt Wall should not have been cut.

He may look like Derrick Rose but my concern is that he has Michael Beasley's immaturity and attitude problems. Or he may not, his "advisors" and his past at Broughton make it seem that way.

Since when are players going to want the best player on the team to be cut anyway? A quote from a former teammate doesn't really change my opinion.

Wall said he's looking mainly for a team that runs and a coach with whom he can get along.

"If you go to a school where you don't get along with the coaches, y'all are having a lot of arguments, you're not going to play, you might take more years than you expect to go to the next level," he said. "I need a coach to push me to make sure I get to the next level as soon as possible."

Wall is lying here. He doesn't want a coach that can push him to make sure he gets to the NBA as soon as possible. He and his "advisors" want a coach that will let Wall do whatever he wants, design the offense around him, and not cause him any problems that could affect his draft stock. If they really wanted a coach that would push him, they would not rule out any programs with coaches that are tough minded and are able to expand his basketball skills by running a different offense from the one he is used to.

A college basketball coach needs to be able to put his/her players in the position to succeed and any coach worth his money would do that for John Wall. A recruit needs to choose the right school for him, but that recruit also can't expect to run the same offense his entire life and play for a coach that won't have a bigger ego than him for the rest of his life. College basketball is about a player learning how to better play the game and learning to adapt to different situations. It seems Wall's handler's have no interest in him learning how to do either or these two things.

A recruit has to do what is best for him when it comes to choosing a college, I think it is hard to do that when that recruit has "advisors" who are not looking out for the player and his best interests. This is the part of college basketball recruiting I don't enjoy hearing about.