More Beckham

Paul is rocking the casbah here at the Sports Sauna and I'm loving it. Big time. Always something good to read at the Sauna!

As my steroids treatise continues to gestate, I've just got a soccer-related tidbit.

Or, just more info about Beckham's contract, as written by Forbes.com, as appearing at Soccernet: "(Beckham's) five-year MLS deal, which gives him a cut of ticket sales and a 45% share of the take from sales of all Galaxy team jerseys, could be worth $250 million."

45 percent of jersey sales! Wow.

The Beckham contract continues to fascinate me. I love how the MLS is, in some sense, gambling with its future and it is happening before our eyes. We are accustomed to seeing businesses put their necks on the line, but I'm not aware of any sports equivalent to the MLS.

How do you attract attention? How do you fulfill a sense of obligation (develop American soccer) while also building a responsible business? How do you do it in a media culture that pays you no heed, and a sports world that gives you no respect?

Awesome stuff, MLS. Keep it up.

(In related news, I saw an annoucement for Thursday night MLS games on ESPN2HD all season long. Sweet!!!! commercials here).

From Sports Illustrated...

I liked John Garrity's Tiger 2.0 from this week's Sports Illustrated (Tiger's on the cover again). Sort of a "State of Tiger Right Now" report, something I haven't really happened upon in article-form for a couple years.

Sitting here now, I'm realizing that I've followed Tiger closer than any other athlete over the course of my life. He's 6 years older than me, so there's a good chance I'll be a witness to his entire life. I wonder if and when cracks will show on his character. I'm not talking about cursing on the golf course or being a tough interview, I'm talking about significant moral failings or errors in judgement. Even MJ has the stain of his gambling and extra-marital affairs.

One of the points of the article is that, off the golf course at least, Tiger takes almost no risks. I wonder if that extends to his private life. I do believe that time will tell.

Jim Calhoun

Yet another legitimate reason to dislike Jim Calhoun: he's come out and implied that he'll be recommending to several of his players that they transfer.

I'm convinced that Calhoun is becoming more scummy at the same rate that Jim Boeheim has become less scummy. Let's be honest: outside of Jim Boeheim, and what the commentators say while they're covering SU and UConn games, Calhoun and Boeheim haven't exactly been the most lovable of coaches. But I really think Boeheim has come a long way in the "lovable" department.

Boeheim is a guy who once showed up intoxicated to a town of Manlius community organization meeting which my mother was attending. But that was about 15 years ago. Since then, he overacheived with most of his rosters in the late 90s, married a smoking hot babe young enough to be his daughter, beaten prostate cancer, won a championship and worn a large orange foam hat in celebration, appeared in some fantastic commercials, become a regular on the most popular sports talk show on television (PTI), and he looks better than ever.

And say what you will about Boeheim's relationship with his players - and I'll be the first to admit he's not a player's coach - he never forces a guy out if they suck.

Meanwhile, the characters of Calhoun's players have gotten MORE suspect, the demeanor of Calhoun's teams have gotten MORE individualistic, rumors regularly come out of Connecticut about suspect recruiting practices, and Calhoun's laptop-theft ring remains one step ahead of the law.

Yes, I'm biased against Calhoun. But come on! COME ON! And that's all I have to say about that.

Why the 2007 NCAA Selection Committee Took Arkansas Over Syracuse

Arkansas fired its coach Stan Heath today, despite the Razorbacks getting into the tournament. The general consensus, as far as I'm aware, is that if Arkansas hadn't made the tournament, Syracuse would have been in the bracket. So when I saw that Heath was fired, I wondered if he had any friends on the committee who might have been intent to try to save his job.

I went looking for the selection committee names and stumbled onto this nice site. There are a couple of notes on the right giving the author's opinion that 2005 was the best-seeded tournament while 2006 was the worst. I glanced at his rationale for the latter, and it looked pretty reasonable. In retrospect, complaining about George Mason getting into the tournament seems a little foolish. But this year I've heard a lot of people saying, "the selection committee got it right" just because the seeds held. I don't buy that argument. The selection committee is supposed to pick the best field and give them fair seedings based on how well they've played during the year, then let the tournament run its course. George Mason lost to Hofstra twice late in the year, but got into the tournament over Hofstra? That's not fair to Hofstra.

But I digress.

Scanning the roster for possibly pro-Arkansas/Stan Heath people, two of the ten names jumped right out. First, the SEC had its commissioner, Michael Slive, on the committee. The Big East didn't have a representative from its conference or from any of its teams this year. If Darryl Gross is on the committee, even if he's out of the room when they're discussing Syracuse, the Orange get a bid. Ditto Michael Tranghese, Big East commissioner. Slive, too, would have had to leave the room when Arkansas was being discussed. But he's going to know whether or not Arkansas gets in, and he's going to know who Arkansas is fighting against to beat out Syracuse. At the very least, he's going to think a little higher of Arkansas than anybody else and, therefore, think a little less of the other teams on the bubble.

The other pro-Arkansas/Stan Heath guy...Kent State's AD Laing E. Kennedy. Why would he care if Stan Heath got fired? Remember why Heath got the Arkansas job? He took a mid-major to the Elite Eight in 2002. That team...was...KENT STATE!!! Good ol' Laing gave Stanny his first coaching job. Why wouldn't he want to see his old guy keep his job at a big-time SEC school? And Laing would have been in on the discussions for whether or not to include Arkansas.

The irony of all this is I actually defended the selection committee after they let a bunch of journalists run through a mock version of the process. In retrospect, Chris was exactly right in his comments: "...I think political considerations probably enter into a commissioner's decision making process." I also agree with Chris's comment that the selection committee isn't "evil." But the committee can't help but be skewed toward helping a school here or there. This year, the deck was (unintentionally) stacked against Syracuse, and other bubble teams not named Arkansas.

Of course, Syracuse probably should have gotten in ahead of about 8 schools that made the tournament. So I guess the other conclusion we can make about this year's selection committee is that they're all blithering idiots.

Luckily, the 2007 tournament was canceled.

Finally...something informative

Daniel Engber writing for Slate's science page actually gives some hard facts about HGH. There's also a bunch of other related articles linked at the bottom.

I was aware that HGH was not a steroid, hence my frequent use of the terms "performance enhancers" and "stuff." I think we should all agree to call performance enhancers "stuff" and know what we're talking about. It's just easier.

As for the Engber article, one of the points it makes is not a new one. Jose Canseco, of course, claimed that he took steroids safely, without ill-effect. Engber claims that HGH is even safer than steroids. He also believes it's much less effective, though he doesn't dismiss the idea that it could help pro athletes.

Which brings us right back to Fyall's question over what should or should not be legal. If HGH is not dangerous and only helps a little, then what's the difference between it and a better pair of baseball spikes? Culturally, HGH is frowned upon, just like cannabis is frowned upon more than tobacco even though it's less dangerous.

So I say... ban steroids definitely. Testing is pretty reliable, though it's still hard to catch careful users. Ban HGH for now. If further tests prove that it really, really doesn't do that much, let it go. There's tons of legal drugs out there that athletes use anyway.

A Disaster That Has Yet to Be Mitigated

James Brown is a debacle, isn't he? I've been loving the Sports Guy's love affair with Gus Johnson. I think we almost all agree on that. And I was shocked to hear Gus was out after the first weekend because of CBS's new contract with JB. But the most amazing thing has been how bad JB is at play-by-play.

I'm not a huge Len Elmore fan, but the guy usually sounds halfway decent. James Brown has actually lowered the quality of his color man! This is just agonizing. Maybe I can get the audio feed online...

Give and Take: Roids, Performance Enhancers, Stuff

I'm enjoying this ongoing debate in the Sauna immensely. We're really beating each other with birch branches now, Chris! Here's Chris's comment to my steroids post last week, with a new response from me:

Chris wrote...
I disagree. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that steroids are more prevalant in the NFL than they are in MLB. In fact, the evidence points in the complete opposite direction.

The football players who have tested positive are the best players in the league. Merriman. Shaun Rodgers (top five DT in Madden '07, for instance). Sauerbruan. Super Bowl champions. Second-tier players /teams simply are not testing positive.

That's not true in baseball where everybody is testing/admitting guilt. Barry Bonds, yes. But also Ryan Franklin. Jason Giambi? Guilty. Jeremy Giambi? Ditto. Raffy Palmerio. The entire Mariners farm system. (Which is a gawdawful farm system).

While it seems possible that steroids would benefit NFL players more than MLB players (a point which Klosterman uses to jump to conclusions that he admits he cannot prove), it also seems true that only the best players are being found guilty. It seems equally easy and logical to argue that the others aren't taking steroids.

I think my argument incorporates steroids in bike racing -- the only sports where we are absolutely sure doping is a massive problem -- better than Klosterman's. Good riders/teams are testing positive at least as frequently as bad riders/teams. That mirrors MLB, but does not resemble the NFL.

So, anyway. I think steroids are a problem in football. That is obvious. But the difference between MLB and the NFL isn't that steroids are so widespread in football that critics cannot personalize the issue.

Klosterman suggested that "over time, we won't be able to separate Merriman from the rest of the puzzle (which MLB has so far successfully done with Bonds)."

I think Klosterman is ignoring the evidence which points to a much more fundamental point: NFL fans don't care.

On this blog, I've documented a number of non-story NFL controversies. (To read those, search "steroids" in the upper left hand corner of the blog).

NFL steroids controversies, though, like Lance Armstrong doping controversies, have zero traction in the United States. In these sports, we only care about winning. Baseball fans have a fundamentally different ethos: history means something.

I think people will find that the controversy disparity makes much more sense when viewed through that lens.

Paul wrote...
I guess I just performance enhancers are a bigger problem in the NFL because I have a perception that it's a different players' culture. Baseball is a much more individual game: one player batting at a time. It seems to me, then, that players would make individual decisions to use stuff. That's why crappy guys right up to stars are getting caught.

The NFL is such a team game, that there must be more peer pressure to use stuff. If 4 offensive lineman are using, and the 5th is struggling, you'd think there'd be some pressure for the 5th to start juicing.

That's why I think the revelation that whole teams seem to be, at the very least, having access to steroids is important. I just don't think that would happen in baseball, where players are getting caught individually. And I think it must happen with most if not all NFL teams.

So I guess that compared to Chris, I'm drawing more conclusions from the Steelers' doctor buying $150,000 of HGH then from who is getting caught by tests. Drawing conclusions about steroid use based on who has gotten caught by tests is like drawing conclusions about what the dinosaurs were like based on fossils.

[OBSCURE SEGUE ALERT]
Scientists have discovered only 1000 different species of dinosaurs. That's about a quarter of the known species of mammals alive today. And dinosaurs were around about three times as long as mammals have been so far. That means that we know nothing of the somewhere around 70% to 90% of the dinosaurs that ever existed.
[END OBSCURE SEGUE]

My point is, if you look at the steroid testing list, you're looking at a list of dumb people, who wandered into tar pits. The smart ones are going to get away with it. The only way they're going to be caught is from the paper trail. That's how the 2004 Panthers and the 2006 Steelers have been caught. The rest of the NFL has been a little luckier. So far.

Conference Speeds

This is quite interesting. It gives the possessions-per-40 minutes stats for all the power conferences over the past three years.

A couple thoughts:
-The Pac-10 has slowed down over the past two years, which really brings into question my belief that it's a "D-Lite league" (as that blogger calls it). But I would suggest that the drop could be caused by Ben Howland's brilliant defensive scheming at UCLA and Son-of-Dick Bennett's slow it down, Big 10-esque style at Washingston State. The Cougars have, indeed, the fourth fewest possessions per 40. Arizona State has even fewer, but that might be just because they suck; note that they have a "WANT TO PLAY FOR THE SUN DEVILS?" link on their men's basketball homepage.

-Syracuse is the 9th fastest team. I guess that makes sense. The zone is designed to create turnovers, and we played it fairly well this season. We turned it over a lot this season. We occaisionally like to push the pace. We kept getting down and having to scramble back into the game by increasing the number of possessions. (See last night.)

-Big East is on average the second slowest conference. Exactly what I would have guessed, and unlike that blogger, I like it that way. Big 10 games are defensive grinders, but Big East games are slugfests. As long as the Big East has existed, it has generally been the most physical conference.

-ACC has slowed down. The addition of 3 Big East teams to the mix probably has something to do with it. Also, Duke hasn't been as talented. I suspect normally they'd be right up there with North Carolina and Maryland at the top of the possessions per game chart.


Anyway, interesting stuff. I'd like to see it over the past 10 years.

NFL Steroids

Killing time before the NCAA picks back up on Thursday, and lacking any semblance of a Cinderella in the phony 2007 NCAA tournament that could make for some good filler stories, ESPN.com is leading with a Page 2 essay by Chuck Klosterman on steroids in the NFL. It's a thoughtful if uninformative summary of what no one is saying.

I mean, at this point, we've got pretty solid evidence inplicating 2 of the last 8 Super Bowl teams as being entirely on steroids: the 2004 Panthers and the 2006 Steelers. Let's face it. The NFL is riddled with steroids. CERTAINLY they must be more widespread than in the MLB. As Klosterman notes, "football is more about intangible masculine warfare..." Bigger and stronger is ALWAYS better. If you want to hit another person more effectively, drugs would help. There is a bit more to hitting a baseball.

I think that the anti-steroid backlash by baseball fans has helped prevent performance enhancing drugs as well. Nobody wants to be seen as a villain. Any baseball player connected with steroids is a villain.

To answer Klosterman's implied question, I am going to think about the NFL similarly to how I think about the Tour de France. I'd much rather see guys completely drug-free, but I know that almost no one is. So I just shrug my shoulders and enjoy the entertainment.

Baseball, on the other hand, IS different. I really feel like there are guys out there who aren't on steroids, which let's me think of baseball players as innocent until suspiscion of guilt. And I can really get behind the Griffey Juniors out there who I really believe are drug-free.

Meanwhile in the Premiership...

Everton is playing good football and have moved into UEFA cup position - 6th place (see standings below) - following a home win over Arsenal. Andy Johnson continues to just score goals (look for him to start in the upcoming European Cup qualifiers for England), and Everton are playing well, but the real key to their rise has been the slumping of teams around them.

Arsenal has been bounced from the Carling Cup, the FA Cup, and the Champions League in quick succession. They're well back in third position and Liverpool are a point behind with a game in hand.

Bolton is in 5th place, but they've lost four straight by a combined score of 13-4. Everton are only a point behind them, and have a 12 to -3 goal differential edge for any potential tie-breaker. Indeed, none of the teams chasing Everton for that final spot in Europe are within 7 goals of Everton in goal differential.

Tottenham is in 7th and playing nice football, but hopefully they will be too occupied with the UEFA Cup and the FA cup to keep pace with Everton. They still have to play Chelsea twice and Arsenal once before the season is over.

American Bobby Convey of 8th place Reading is out for the rest of the season with an injury. Fellow Yank Marcus Hahnemann remains the number-one keeper. They've had a great season, but teams just don't make it into Europe in their first season after being promoted.

Portsmouth have only one win in the Premiership since the New Year. Count them out in ninth.

Down in the basement, it's three London teams: Charlton, West Ham, and Watford. Manchester City has been all over the papers because of the pressure their coach is under, but they're six points clear with a game in hand. Sheffield United and Wigan are hanging on, but I suspect one of them will fall below Charlton in the end.

At the top, everyone here seems to think Manchester United has the Premiership won. I think I even heard that some bookies are even paying up for them as champions. But two hiccups from Man U are all Chelsea need to jump back in it. I think it will be closer, but Man U will pull it out.

2006/07 Premiership Table
CLUB	GP	W	L	D	PTS	GD
Man Utd	30	24	3	3	75	50
Chelsea	30	21	3	6	69	35
Arsenal	29	16	6	7	55	27
Liverpool	30	16	8	6	54	24
Bolton	30	14	11	5	47	-3
Everton	30	12	8	10	46	12
Tottenham	30	13	11	6	45	-1
Reading	30	13	12	5	44	5
Portsmouth	30	11	10	9	42	5
Blackburn	30	12	14	4	40	-5
Newcastle	30	10	13	7	37	-5
Middlesbrough	30	9	12	9	36	-4
Aston Villa	30	7	10	13	34	-6
Fulham	30	7	10	13	34	-13
Man City	29	9	14	6	33	-12
Wigan	30	9	15	6	33	-14
Sheff Utd	30	8	15	7	31	-19
Charlton	30	7	17	6	27	-21
West Ham	30	6	19	5	23	-28
Watford	30	3	16	11	20	-27

Continuing Hatred of the NCAA Selection Committee

I've never been a huge, huge proponent of the "East Coast Bias" theories floating around. But as UNLV wrapped up their impressive upset of Wisconsin in the phony NCAA tournament, Jim Nantz noted that the Rebels had been unhappy with their 7-seed coming into the tournament. That got me thinking... Southern Illinois got a 4-seed...Butler got a 5-seed...and UNLV, a team with 28 wins in a high-mid-major conference, gets a 7-seed? THAT'S east coast bias.

So I went back and checked Joe Lunardi, who I believe picks a fairer bracket then anyone. Sure enough, he had UNLV seeded at FOUR. He had the Salukis at a 3 (very fair, considering that the MVC is probably stronger than the Mountain West). But he had Butler as a 7.

Similarly, Nevada got a 7-seed. Lunardi had them seeded at 5.

Here's what I think: the Pac-10 can claim to be underrated all they want. Their top teams generally play well enough in the NCAAs, and they regularly get into the final four or better. But they don't regularly out-perform their seeding. The east coast knows about the Pac-10. We know Arizona always has talent. We know Oregon tends to have good guards and chokes early in the tournament. We know UCLA has a fantastic coach that has them playing good defense. And of course, we know about Gonzaga.

But I didn't hear anything about UNLV all year. I never know what's going on in the Mountain West until their conference tournament winds down. We know about Nick Fazekas because he's had such a long, successful career. But I probably don't respect the WAC quite as much as I should.

I think that the committee treats the Pac-10 fairly relative to the other majors, but I don't think they treat the western mid-majors fairly relative to the mid-majors east of the Mississippi.

Bottom line: I'm slightly more concerned about San Diego State (out of the WAC, facing Syracuse Monday night in the NIT) than I was 30 minutes ago.

Go Bulldogs

If there was an NCAA tournament this year, and it hadn't been canceled due to irresponsible negligence on the part of the selection committee, I'd be cheering for Butler. They're probably my favorite mid-major program (not counting Buffalo last year). I was quite pleased to see that ol' Joel Cornette, that ultra-lanky forward who was a Freshman in Butler's near-miss against Florida in 2000 and a senior when they made the Sweet 16 in 2003, is still with the program as the "coordinator of basketball operations." And who informed me of that little knuggaht? Kim Baxter of the Post-Standard in a special to ESPN.com article.

Anyway, if a bracket existed, we might find that Florida has two highly well-coached, well-performing teams in it's way. First Purdue, who if they had played Arizona, would have revealed the Wildcats to be a very talented, very poorly-motivated team, just like most of Lute Olsen's teams. Purdue is not as talented as the Wildcats, but they play hard, and would give Florida a good run in the second round. If there was a tournament this year.

But Florida would probably survive, setting up a rematch of the epic 2000 game with Butler. The winner of that game would likely get Wisconsin in our theoretical bracket.

But I digress. The bottom line is: go Butler.

Go Orange

Here's a rare link to a Bud Poliquin column. Very nicely written. I like that he's encouraging people to go to the NIT games. But I think my favorite part is that I know I would have been at that game.

Notent Notables

-The Post-Standard's own Kim Baxter got a spot on ESPN.com today with a little knuggaht on VCU's chain. I was excited. Go Post-Standard.

-In case you were wondering, I didn't fill out a single bracket this year. Not one. I did watch a little basketball, just in case something amazing happened. I took grim pleasure in the fact that it was one of the dullest opening days in tournament history. And as the Duke game tipped off, I predicted their defeat.

-My first fantasy baseball draft is Monday. I joined Pandori's AL-only keeper league. It's my first time in an AL-only league. Also my frist time in an espn.com league. Should be very interesting. My keepers are:
Johan Santana
Ichiro
Morneau
Carlos Guillen
Adrian Beltre
Bobby Jenks


We don't have to keep 6, but we can keep up to 6. Last year's first place team keeps 4, second place keeps 5. I struggled a long time with keeping Jenks and Beltre. There are about a dozen guys who aren't being kept that I'd rather have, and it's an 8 team league. But then I realized that I wouldn't be getting high draft picks instead of keeping them, and that the teams with less than 6 keepers would even out their rosters at the end of the draft, not at the beginning. So obviously, I'd love Beltre and Jenks with my last two picks. No brainer.

Stunned Silence

Ok...I realize that its been close to a year since my last substantial post on own blog. I also understand that this is my first blog on the critically acclaimed Sports Sauna and the pressure of providing a "good read" may be too much to handle. That said, I am going to do my best to fulfill the "mission statement" of the Sauna. Which is of course, to overuse quotation marks in discussing sports and sports-related topics.

So here goes nothing - the topic of my blog is stunned silence. A phrase that described me perfectly Sunday evening as Clark Kellogg announced the final pairings of the South bracket leaving Syracuse out. A phrase that describes me now as I watch the Cuse struggle against South Alabama, a team that hasn't beaten an opponent from a major conference since Auburn in 2000. Its done now and there is too much written about the subject by actual sports writers so why would anyone care what I have to say. So lets move on, shall we?

The actual tournament should be a wildly entertaining one. Never before has there been as much talent in the college game, thanks in large part to the one year of college/prep school required for high school seniors. Here are my thoughts on the brackets and piedictions for what is to come. (As a disclaimer, never before have I won any type of office pool involving brackets therefore, its best to read this after filling out your sheets).

MIDWEST
First round upsets - Tech over UNLV - I love the ACC, and GT beat NC and Memphis (away) this year. 1 and 2 seeds respectively. Technically, GT is favored so this isn't really an upset pick.

Sweet Sixteen - Florida, Maryland, Tech and Notre Dame
Elite 8 - Florida and Notre Dame
Final four - Florida

Thoughts on the region - Florida should have an easy time advancing. I just can't see them repeating as champs. It's too tough nowadays, what with parity and all. (good point EA). Notre Dame is my sleeper..not sure why but they remind me of the 2002 Indiana team that made a run to the Final Four. Couldn't name a player on that team either but sensed something special.

WEST
First round Upsets - VCU over Duke and Wright State over Pitt. Pittsburgh scored 42 points in a major conference championship game. Duke has struggled all year against fast teams. Plus Coach K is washed up...ok well maybe thats not true but the Dukies lack the talent to go anywhere. Va Tech goes down to Illinois as well.

Sweet 16 - Kansas, SIU, VCU and UCLA
Elite 8 - Kansas and UCLA
Final Four - UCLA

Thoughts - My dad used to teach at SIU so I may be a bit biased picking the Salukis to win a couple games. UCLA could have that one bad game and get bounced early by Indiana, or they could win each game by 20 points. Kansas vs UCLA will be an awfully entertaining game to watch so I hope it happens.

EAST
First Round Upsets - I like Arkansas over USC for a couple reasons. First - the Pac10 is over-rated, the SEC under-rated. Put them together and you get simply rated. The second reason is the fact that there are too many "haters" on the Arkansas bid, they should prove many people wrong. Same reasoning behind my Illini over Va Tech pick by the way.

Sweet 16 - UNC, Texas, Vandy, BC
Elite 8 - UNC and Vandy
Final Four - UNC

Thoughts - For those of you who don't know, I am a huge UNC fan. There is no reason why they shouldn't win the whole thing this year. Its quite possible that it won't happen as they could face a ridiculously tough road in MSU, Texas, AND Georgetown. I can see either of the latter two winning it all as well. Toughest bracket by far.

SOUTH
First Round Upsets - Albany over Virginia - I love SUNY schools and dislike ACC teams not knicknamed Tar Heels. Enough said.

Sweet 16 - OSU, Tennessee, Texas AM, Memphis
Elite 8 - Tennessee, Texas AM
Final Four - Texas AM

Thoughts - Chris Lofton is the main reason why I have the Volunteers going far. I can see him pulling a Damon Stoudamire and dropping 35/game in a magical run to the elite 8. Plus I watched only one of their games this year and it happened to be when they smoked Florida a few weeks ago. Ohio State gets dropped early as the Big Ten fails to prepare them for the all-around game needed to win in the Big Dance. I love A&M this year...for some reason I get the irking feeling that they will be responsible for me tearing up my bracket in a few days.

Final Four - UCLA over Florida UNC over Texas A&M
Why? Honestly, I don't think Florida will make it this far. If they do, UCLA will take care of them. They have the talent and the coaching to run with the Gators and its just too hard to repeat. UNC shouldn't lose to anyone. Hansbrough's mask scares me but the frosh trio of Wright, Lawson and Ellington have shown that they can carry the load. Add Terry and his ability to hit big shots and we have the recipe for another National Championship.

Final game prediction UNC over UCLA - 75 to 68.

There you have it, my predictions for the Big Dance. Tune into easblog.blogspot.com to view my picks against the spread as EA vs Vegas Bookies is back and better than ever.

Predictions

i hate predictions. i'm awful, and i think thery are generally useless. but, but! they are fun to read. and, since paul won't be predicting anything this tourney, let me fill the void. sort of.

a friend (who obviously knows nothing about basketball, or who she should consult for help) e-mailed asking for bracket advice. this is what i came up with:

There are a few concrete rules in NCAA basketball: 1) At least one, and probably two, number one seeds will lose before the Final Four. Pick those right and you're in good shape. 2) Syracuse is the best damn basketball team in the history of mankind. Always bet Orange. We are the greatest. (Or, well...)

OK. Umm. I guess I'll just write stream-of-consciousness style:

Ohio State is too young to advance far. They are one number one seed you can bump off. Florida is the best team and might win it all. Kansas is very good. I'm taking them to the Final Four, too.

With the two seeds, I'm not sure what to do with UCLA or Wisconson. Pick one of them to go really far. I say UCLA. They almost won last year, and still have an unbelievable defense. Georgetown is good. Don't knock them out too early.

I think Texas (a #4) and Notre Dame (a #6) are better than their seeds. Particularly Notre Dame. Have them beat somebody they shouldn't.

Oregon (a #3) is not good. I don't really like Maryland (a #4), either. Those are reasonable bets to bounce out early.

ok. there's that. go team.

Stunned

I'm devastated. Usually, you know if you are on the bubble. What the hell happened? It’s taken me a day to get on my feet.

Didn’t we get some “lock” status after the Georgetown win? Weren’t we basically assured a spot after winning a game in the Big East tourney? What? Where?

A 2-seed in the NIT? In the south? Holy hell. West Virginia got a one-seed over us! Clemson, too! Clearly, the NIT expected our 2-seed slot to go to Arkansas. They were as surprised as the rest of us.

I think there are two possible lessons here:
1) 16-team conferences don’t work. For SOS purposes, we depend on the teams we play twice, and when UConn sucks, and we split with subpar Villanova and St. John squads, our poor out-of-conference performance becomes painfully obvious.
2) Joe Lunardi is falliable. And so are the rest of them, I guess. Because I was so confident in our resume, I didn’t even watch the selection show. Whoops.

To make things worse, I think this team was easily better than last year’s, and quite possibly better than the team that featured Warrick. This year’s team was also quite likeable, but that doesn’t seem very unique at all. Evem though I love this year’s batch of players, I would have been more disappointed if Gerry had missed out his senior year than Demitris, Terrance and Darryl.

...So, anyway, next year. Right?

Half-time: SU v. ND

Halftime of the Notre Dame game and you know what? For the first time all season long, I'm content with this team.

First of all, up by three against the #16 team in the country in the post-season...AND our best scorer has one point. Anyone would take that.

But it's more than just this game that I'm content about. I went to one game while I was home over Christmas, against lowly St. Bonaventure (no offense Brian). We beat them, but the way that we beat them was just SO unconvincing. Even in victory, we were not a good team.

It took us a while: even a month ago I was still feeling crummy about this team. But since then, Jimmy's got them into shape. The only thing I feel is completely wrong with this team is an injury: Roberts's knee. Here's what's right:

Watkins: right now he's got 6 points and 4 boards, and he's playing great defense. At the end of his career, we have to be pretty pleased with what he's given Syracuse. The best Orange center since Etan Thomas.

Roberts: How much will we miss his energy on the court? The enduring image in my mind will be him pointing in one direction while the ref points in the other. I feel like that happens every other game. Right now he's gutting out 6 points and 10(!) boards.

Rautins: See Fyall yesterday. But also see that pass he whipped inside to one of the big guys in this game? (Jay Bilas compared it to Moses Malone.) And see that full-court pass he made to Watkins to punish Notre Dame for their botched fast break? Apparently, those are the types of plays his dad made. We appreciate his three point shooting now, but we're only starting to appreciate his all-around play. Exciting!

Devendorf: Finally, FINALLY settling down at the point. Right now I love the way he's prioritizing his game: 1st get teammates involved, 2nd drive to the hoop, 3rd shoot the three. Perfect, Eric. PERFECT. Keep it right there. That's FINE.

Harris: Leading Syracuse with 9 points right now. Early in the season he gave us a few tastes of his brilliance, but that was against lesser opponents. Now we're getting those same tastes against quality teams. I'm excited. Even if it does mean people will do a double-take when I introduce myself around Syracuse from now on.

Wright: At the very least, he's looked good against Notre Dame. Arguably the biggest play of the first half was Russell Carter's 3rd foul, caused by Wright's speed and aggressiveness on the break. That's the intelligent use of speed we need to see more of from him, in the 1+ year he has left.

Nichols: To be fair to Fyall, who is picking the last bit of meat off the crow on his plate right now, no one really saw this season coming from Nichols. And coming into the year, Roberts was supposed to be the go to guy. And maybe that's the reason why it took so long for this team to click. But they're clicking now.

And I'm content. Even if we lose this game to the Irish and get bounced in the first round of the NCAA, at least we'll go down playing our very best. It's nice to feel good about the Orange.

Andy Rautins! (One Down: UConn)

Andy Rautins is stepping up. Unbelievable.

Because of a crazy work schedule, I've missed every game for the last few weeks. I didn't see a single victory during our win streak, for instance. I come back today, though, and Rautins is suddenly BMOC? What happened?

In the first six minutes of the second half, he set the tone:
1) He knocked AJ Price hard so on defense the commentators were begging for a foul. It was the sort of tough-guy thing UConn has done to us for years and Rautins, of all people, was sending it back;
2) He blew past Price with a cross-over. It was the sort of quick-guy thing that UConn has done to us for years and Rautins, of all people...;
3) Watkins made a crazy continuation bucket, and the guy screaming loudest in his face -- Syracuse's most vocal leader on the floor -- was Rautins.

Who'da thunk it?

In related news, I'd like to eat some crow with regard to Demitris. At this point, he's easily the best scorer we've had since Carmelo. If he hits two 3-pointers in a row, he'll hit five. I still feel like we need inside scoring (compliments of Devendorf today), but he's downright nasty from behind the arc.

Go team.

Big East draw

Interesting draw for the Orange in the Big East tournament.

First they'll face UConn. The Hukies season is probably my favorite storyline of the 2006-07 season. They're absolutely atrocious: 6-10 in the Big East after a putrid non-conference schedule. Those are the kind of seasons Jim Boeheim never has. The only thing that could make me happier is (as always) if during a game, while he was jumping up and down and screaming at the refs, a laptop fell out of Jim Calhoun's sports coat. I imagine Calhoun freezing as the game comes to halt and the arena goes dead quiet...then erupting into confused chaos as Calhoun flees the stadium.

Still, there are a couple other teams I would rather be playing. I can bash Calhoun until his last illegally recruited blue chipper gets arrested, but that won't change the fact that he plans a good game whenever he faces Syracuse. Luckily, the only team that the Huskies beat this season that finished above them in the standings was Syracuse exactly one month ago. And that was when the Huskies were still on the bubble. Remember: these guys were favored to win the NCAAs a year ago, but bombed out against George Mason largely because of poor chemistry. Somehow I don't think their motivation will be enough to beat Syracuse.

And let me just say here that I think the Orange are playing their best basketball all season. I even think they outplayed Villanova, only losing because of Villanova's ridiculous free throw shooting (and ridiculously high amount of FTs taken). How good are we playing? Sweet sixteen good, I'd say. They just have to TCB* against UConn.

If they do, they'll face Notre Dame. This season's blowout notwithstanding, Syracuse has owned the Irish in recent years. Plus, rule #2 of conference college basketball applies:
1.) It's nearly impossible to beat a team three times in a season, no matter how bad they are and how bad you are.
2.) If you embarass a solid team in the first meeting, expect to get your comeuppance in the second.

Homer: Oh, Lisa, you saved me! And after all the bad things I said about you.
Lisa: What bad things? Why?
Homer: Oh, Lisa, the important thing is I didn't get my comeuppance, and I never will.
Lisa: (notices the restauranteurs massing) Uh...Dad?
Homer: I know honey. The important thing is...run!
(fade to credits)
Homer: Oooh. Finally getting my comeuppance.

If they dispatch the Irish, Syracuse will likely get Georgetown. Of course, I recently discussed my favorable attitudes towards the Orange's chances against the Hoyas in this space.

After that is the finals. It would be remarkable, but if Syracuse does get that far, win or lose, they'll be considered one of the hottest teams in the country going into the tournament. Many will point to last year's early exit as evidence for suspecting another first round loss for the Orange. But last year Syracuse's most important player was injured. Terrance Roberts might have to have his leg amputated if he plays four straight days, but Syracuse has already learned how to win without him. So I pooh-pooh anyone who suggests the Orange might be better if they don't play four games in a row. The most important thing is to get as high a seed as possible, and the farther Syracuse goes, the better. I like their chances to go far.

Prediction: I can't ignore my own rationale. Syracuse loses by 11 to Pittsburgh in the finals.



*Take care of business.