Breaking Down the Final Four

Don't pretend you are excited for the Final Four. You're not. There are no dominant teams or star players. I mean, when Da'Sean Butler is the biggest name left, then you know a lot of the excitement is gone. Not to say the games won't be good. Actually, with these matchups, they may be great. But you have to be a little bummed.

The only storyline that you'll hear all week is the Butler/Hoosiers comparison. Which is weak, at best. So I say, let's break down the stats. It's really the only interesting thing about the Final Four.

Michigan State vs Butler

For me, there are 6 statistical categories that matter in basketball. These are field goal percentage (offensive and defensive), rebound differential, turnover margin and three point percentage (offensive and defensive). Here are the two teams' breakdowns (national rank in parentheses)

Michigan State:

FG%: 47.3 (27th)
DFG%: 40.5 (51st)
RD: +9.0 (1st)
TM: -1.1 (240)
3PT%: 34.3 (163rd)
D3PT%: 32.5 (91st)

Butler:

FG%: 45.3 (78th)
DFG%: 41.4 (89th)
RD: +3.7 (60th)
TM: +1.3 (99th)
3PT%: 34.2 (162nd)
D3PT%: 30.9 (38th)

Now, on paper, it looks like a mismatch favoring the Spartans. But when you take the injured Kalin Lucas' 45% field goal percentage out of the mix, the only thing Michigan State really does well is rebound. Butler may not be leading the nation in any one category, but their worst statistic (3 point percentage) is still better than MSU's. Also, the Spartans' 240th ranked turnover margin is pathetic.

I just don't see how MSU can score against Butler. Unless they maximize every possession by not turning the ball over (unlikely), the only advantage they have is on the boards. But if they don't absolutely clean the glass (think 45-22 advantage), they will have less possessions and be least likely to score per possession.

I like Butler in a very low scoring game (over/under is currently at 126). The one thing that could give Michigan State the edge is that they are used to grinding games out in March. It's a game they'll be comfortable playing. However, the same is true with Butler, who is playing 15 minutes away from their campus.

West Virginia vs Duke

Here's the breakdowns:

West Virginia:

FG%: 43.4 (181st)
DFG%: 42.4 (136th)
RD: +6.8 (9th)
TM: +1.8 (63rd)
3PT%: 33.6 (184th)
D3PT%: 33.3 (126th)

Duke:

FG%: 44.0 (146th)
DFG%: 40.4 (48th)
RD: +5.9 (19th)
TM: +3.8 (16th)
3PT%: 38.2 (28th)
D3PT%: 28.2 (4th)

This looks like an even bigger matchup favoring Duke, and with their +11.3 rebounding margin during the tournament (excluding the first round, for obvious reasons), the one thing WVU does really well seems to be eliminated. Plus, with only one primary ball handler left, WVU would seem to be at a complete disadvantage when it comes to turnovers. Add the unlikeliness that the Mountaineers repeat their barrage of threes that they unloaded on Kentucky (Duke is 4th in the nation in defensive three point shooting), then it doesn't look good.

Here's the problem: Duke's entire offensive revolves around perimeter shooting. It's worked out thus far, especially late against Baylor, but how long can that hold up? They won't have very much success down low, so West Virginia can key in on three pointers defensively. This whole tournament, what has propelled Duke's threes is offensive rebounding, which they won't be able to get easily in this game.

This is going to come down to Duke hitting shots, really. And I would never put money down on a team who needs to rain threes for a victory. Coach Bob Huggins knocked Duke out of the tournament two years ago, and I see him doing the same thing here. You simply cannot rely on perimeter shooting to play a defense like this, as Duke clearly does.

read more...

Never Bet on College Kids

Unless, you know, you get great odds and love both the underdogs. Then this happens:

read more...

NHL Needs To Move All-In

Baseball is dead. We all know this, it isn’t exactly a revelation. To quote Baseketball, "with the rapid pace of modern technology, the attention span of the average American can only be “measured in nano-seconds.”" In result, the action (or lack thereof) in baseball just won’t cut it. Baseball has taken a backseat to more action-fueled sports like football and basketball.
We want to see blood, hard hits, pushing, shoving, fighting and the occasional jumping into the stands and wailing on a fan. Baseball offers none of this (in fact, the fans jump onto the field and wail on the first base coach). Hockey, on the other hand, offers all of this. Perhaps hockey will take over baseball’s seat in the Top 3 American sports.

But it won’t.

In light of the epic U.S. vs. Canada gold medal game during the 2010 Winter Olympics, the notion that hockey may finally hit the mainstream was a trending topic and with good reason. It was the first time since 1980 that Americans cared about hockey. For the first time in my life everyone was talking about hockey. Maybe all hockey needed was to have that one moment that hooked everyone in. Unfortunately for the game, it takes more than just a defining moment.

A good comparison would be the 2003 World Series of Poker Main Event. Before 2003, no one gave a crap about poker. It was a game some people played at home on the weekends and only degenerate gamblers played for a living. When ESPN broadcasted amateur (at the time) Chris Moneymaker take down the championship, people across the world were hooked. Fast forward to today, and poker is just as popular. So why can’t hockey have a similar fate?

The first thing you need is that defining moment which captivates and catches the attention of everyone. Check. From there, the next thing you need to do is capitalize on that moment. Poker did that by signing all sorts of television deals to broadcast a variety of tournaments: Poker After Dark, World Poker Tour, High Stakes Poker, etc. This is where hockey fails.

Hockey’s opportunity to keep the audience’s attention came way too soon. The perfect opportunity came when Ryan Miller and Sidney Crosby’s very next game would be against each other…two days after the Olympics. This game was not scheduled to be televised, and it would be damn near impossible to convince a television producer to change his or her programming with only a two days’ notice. However, the story could have still been there. We didn’t need to see it in order to stay interested. We would have been content on hearing about the matchup. But we didn’t.

Buffalo Sabres’ head coach Lindy Ruff decided to deactivate Miller so he could get some rest after the Olympics. Even though I understand this reasoning, I’m still against it. Hockey needed this. And they didn’t get it.

Another advantage poker has over hockey is the fact that it is not an entity. Poker is a concept. It is a game that is not owned by any one conglomerate that is run by a commissioner. Therefore, literally anyone can organize a game, package it, sell it, and profit. Conversely, professional hockey is owned by the NHL and is watched over by a commissioner…a god-awful one.

If hockey wants to earn the kind of mainstream success poker has enjoyed, it needs to start marketing itself. Right now, hockey’s stock is the highest it has ever been. If hockey has ever had any hope at securing television deals, now is the time. Television is everything! If you’re on television, people will pay attention. Look at the popularity of Jersey Shore for Christ’s sake! You don’t even need to be entertaining or relevant to be successful on television. Hockey is both entertaining and relevant…it can’t fail.

But it will.

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman has proven over the years that he is horrible at his job. If you thought David Stern was worthless, then you obviously haven’t paid attention to hockey, and chances are, you haven’t…BECAUSE BETTMAN IS HORRIBLE AT HIS JOB! He is in the perfect position to sell his product.

But he won’t.

And that is why hockey will remain in the backseat. Bud Selig is horrible at keeping the game in check, but he is awesome at marketing and advertising his product. The same applies to David Stern. Roger Goodell has a firm grip on the game of football in its entirety. Bettman couldn’t get laid in a monkey whorehouse with a bag of bananas.

And yes, I prophesied hockey’s fate by comparing it to poker and Jersey Shore…deal with it.

read more...

March Madness

March is the month for Kansas Jayhawks fans. Every now and then, Missouri or Kansas State will have a good year where they go further in the tournament than KU does. When that happens, KU fans will hear about it until the next season. Well, this is one of those years, and sure enough, KSU and MU fans are voicing their bragging rights left and right.

As they should.

The Wildcats and Tigers had a tournament that either matched or surpassed the Jayhawks. However, the one thing everyone is forgetting is that key word: “tournament.” They had a better tournament. That does not mean they are a better team or had a better season. Missouri fans are certainly aware of this and are proud of how they performed in tournament, which they certainly did meet all expectations.

K-State fans are not as forgiving. Obviously, not all KSU fans are talking smack, and if they are, they’re doing it with class. However, those aren’t the voices we’re hearing over and over again. K-State fans are using KU’s unfortunate loss in the second round as justification for claiming the Wildcats are a better team than the Jayhawks.

I am here to debunk that theory and lay it to rest.

To start, let’s talk about the championship title and what it means. In simplest terms, it’s the team that was able to win six in a row in the month of March against the top teams in the nation. In reality, it’s a highly coveted title that gives a team bragging rights for a year that they are the best team in the nation. But are they really the best team in the nation? Yes and no.

Yes, they are the best team during the month of March…when it counts the most. No, they are not necessarily the best team in terms of overall statistics and performance. The NCAA national championship tournament has a one-and-done format. As KU has proven, all it takes is one off-day to ruin all chances of being the champions. What we need to remember is that losses happen in NCAA basketball…even to the best teams. Not one team lost less than two games in the regular season, and for the top five teams, most of those losses happened to a team with a lower ranking. It happens. Sometimes it happens during March.

If only the best overall team wins the championship, then why is it that a Final Four comprised of all #1 seeds has only happened once? Is it because of bad seeding? Well, some years you can argue that, but for the most part, the NCAA usually gets the #1 seeds right. Also, the designation of an overall #1 seed was started in 2004. Since then, only ONE overall #1 seed has won the tournament (Florida in 2007). Does that mean the other six overall #1 seeds weren’t really the best? No.

Look, the chance of any team winning the championship in any given year is a crapshoot. National championships are few and far between. When it comes to tournament time, the top sixteen teams have an equal chance of winning it all. The differences between the #1, #2, #3, and #4 seeds may be many in the regular season, but those differences mean very little in March. Just look at the numbers. Again, how many #1 seeds go to the Final Four in any given year?

Unfortunately for KU, their upset came way too early. It is acceptable to lose in the Elite Eight and beyond, but in the second round? Unacceptable. This, I will agree with. With that said, it doesn’t matter if you lose in the second round or you lose in the Final Four. The fans of only ONE team are going to walk away not feeling dejected after April 5. Jayhawk fans’ feeling of dejection just came sooner than others.

So if the national championship is more symbolic than indicative, what makes KU the better team? Overall numbers.

Kansas was tied with overall wins and losses. Kansas lost to a team in their conference only once. The conference Kansas plays in has the highest RPI and the second highest Strength of Schedule (SOS). Kansas beat K-State three times…the last win allowed them to take the Big 12 championship. Best overall record in NCAA. Big 12 title. Big 12 championship. 3-0 against K-State. How can anyone argue that K-State is the better team?

K-State was the better team…in March. That’s all. Despite my broken heart, I will say congratulations to K-State for having a better tournament. As far as your bragging rights are concerned…you better win the championship.

read more...

Live NCAA Blog

Ugh. Woke up late due to St. Patrick's festivities. Have to do half of my office pool brackets by hand. On the flip side, listening to the much improved Jay Bilas. It has begun. All times are Central, by the way.

(11:44) Trying to figure out why Kansas City gets Notre Dame/Old Dominion. What control group decided this was better than BYU/Florida?

(11:47) Tim Abromaitis. The Greek God of Drunken Three Point Shooting.

(11:52) I saw roughly 6 guys at the bar last night dressed like Notre Dame's mascot. And I think no matter what game CBS was showing, I'd be mad at it. How can you not glance at those scores and wonder?

(11:57) Old Dominion playing awful. Not sure what this team does so well. Then again, I could say the same about Notre Dame. Neither of these teams winning their Round Two game.

(12:09) Four team parlay: Tennessee -3.5, Baylor -550, Butler -2, Michigan St. -1400. Somehow, only game I'm worried about is Michigan St.

(12:11) ROBERT MORRIS?!?!?!?! Jay Wright decided not to start Scottie Reynolds AND Corey Fisher. He surely has cash on the Robert Morris money line.

(12:21) About time to order a pizza. When you order online, there is a section labeled "Special Directions". I'm going to write "Pick up 30 pack of Bud Light. Big tip." It's worth a shot, right? If Villanova loses, I will need all 30 of those (I have KU over Nova in my Championship).

(12:36) Pizza ordered. It's much harder juggling a live blog, Tweet Deck, 3 Facebook chats and 3 box scores at one time, while watching the games. Even though I didn't pick Old Dominion to win (a lot of people did), I am rooting for them. Remember when Luke Harangody was good?

(12:50) There is a 15-2 upset in the making, and the winner of two of the past four Championships currently losing, but CBS gives me the Notre Dame game. Fantastic.

(1:05) OK. Pizza guy couldn't find my apartment and turned around, Villanova is still losing and I have no beer. Oh, and I'm hungover. What God did I piss off? The mighty Abromaitis?

(1:15) I admit, I haven't followed Notre Dame at all this season, but what's with Harangody? He doesn't even score until 12.6 seconds left in the game? This used to be a Player of the Year candidate.

(1:18) ODU just swished two free throws right after Bilas said "Old Dominion isn't a very goood free throw shooting team." Not that Jay is wrong, but any time you mention how bad/good a team is shooting free throws, the opposite will always happen.

(1:20) One game done, one "upset". Old Dominion wins.

(1:30) BYU is choking, as is Villanova. I might go 0-3 to start this tournament. I hate sports sometimes. However, if Robert Morris wins and Duke doesn't make the Final Four in what will be the easiest region in NCAA tournament history, you can pencil Coach K in as Phil Jackson's replacement in L.A.

(1:37) ESPN's GameCast isn't working. Yeah, the BYU/Florida game is great, but the Nova game matters more.

(1:40) That final possession by Florida is why I had them losing. A backhanded NC State tip-in to win the game? How did Billy Donovan win 2 titles?

(1:43) I was hoping Urban Meyer showed up to hang with his old Mormon peeps. By the way, if BYU pulls this out, they might not get a single rebound during the KSU game.

(1:50) CBS didn't switch to the Villanova game until 25.4 seconds left. You payed 6 billion dollars to show BYU? Really?

(1:57) Looks like BYU and Nova are gonna win. Now 2-1 instead of 0-3. Still, my pick of Nova in the Finals looks really awful right now. Also, how good of a start is this? One game goes into double OT and one game is currently in OT.

(2:11) So, a 62% free throw shooter passes up a wide open dunk/layup (closest defender was at the top of the key) to dribble around and waste clock. Clanks first free throw. That might be the dumbest play we see in the tournament.

(2:15) Bill Rafferty talking about Robert Morris: "They only lost on the scoreboard". Yeah, the only thing that matters.

(2:20) You're not cool by referring to Robert Morris as "Bobby" or "Bob" Morris. You are, in fact, a tool.

(3:09) Looks like Kansas State is going to supply the first rout of the tournament. And I live in Kansas, so I have to watch the whole thing. It's insane that Time Warner can't get a package for the NCAAs. Even then, they would probably switch to BYU post game analysis.

(3:30) Did not realize Bill Simmons was doing this exact same thing today. I'm not even going to try to compete. Have fun. I need to pay more attention to the games anyways.

read more...

96 Problems, But This Ain't One

I'm not going to rant about how bad of an idea to expand the NCAA tournament to 96 teams is. Everyone - and I mean everyone - thinks it's awful. So let's just leave it there. What I want to focus on, and what I feel is the important subtext here, is what this idea and the ideas that come after mean for the future of sports.

Cesar Chavez said, "Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed." The social change in this context is the pursuit of television money. It is the hamster that spins the wheel. Everything you see, from Bob Knight struggling through broadcasts to TBS butchering baseball playoffs, is the result of a very lucrative piece of paper. And of course, this is what is pushing the 96 team bracket.

The only thing sports fans don't want more than this is the BCS. Well, guess what: the BCS is here to stay. And the tournament expansion will be here soon. We have to live with it, just like we had to live with over expansion in all the major sports.

If there were less teams in the NFL, NBA, MLB and (most importantly) the NHL, the games would be better. More teams means a more diluted playing field. The 12th man in a 20 team league sees significant playing time in a 30 team league. It's simple math, it hurts the sport. But we've accepted it. When's the last time you had a heated discussion about getting rid of the Raptors, Marlins or Jaguars?

I suspect we will get used to 96. Remember, the tournament wasn't always 64 teams. I guarantee you that teams like Kansas, North Carolina and Duke would have more banners if the postseason was more limited. Look at how it has progressed over the years:

• 1939–1950: eight teams
• 1951–1952: 16 teams
• 1953–1974: varied between 22 and 25 teams
• 1975–1978: 32 teams
• 1979: 40 teams
• 1980–1982: 48 teams
• 1983: 52 teams (four play-in games before the tournament)
• 1984: 53 teams (five play-in games before the tournament)
• 1985–2000: 64 teams
• 2001—present: 65 teams

The famous North Carolina State championship wasn't even in the 64 team era. UCLA's Wooden years? That's the 22-25 team era. The 64 we know and love isn't a staple, just a transitional period. The bigger the sport gets, the bigger the field.

We will learn to love it. Especially the first time #82 gets to a Elite Eight. Then you can expect the field to expand to 128. And we'll have this same argument over and over again. Is it for the right reasons? No. Will it matter in the long run? To quote Chavez once more, "There is no turning back".

read more...

At Small

Imagine you are applying for a job at a top law firm. You were the 63rd best law student there was. You did well, but others were far and away more impressive than you. They get the top jobs, which is expected. Then the lower opportunities are handed out. The 25th guy gets his job. Then the 39th. Then the 62nd. It's your turn now. You get passed up for somebody else, and then another. All of a sudden, there are no more jobs left.

Do you think anybody cares? Of course not. You weren't a top prospect, just one of those who could of been considered. Yeah, you were 7th in your class at Harvard Law. But the top firms liked the head of his class at Binghamton. Your final interview didn't go so well. This is life.

But not in college basketball. In this world, the underachiever at the big school feels slighted when he isn't picked. He never thinks that he could've done more. His competition is too good, he says. The #1 at Binghamton didn't have enough talented classmates. That is HIS job.

Except, law students don't have the media on their side. They have to accept reality. Joe Lunardi gets to create his own reality, a world in which the opinions of the decision makers doesn't matter. But in business, in the real world, those decision makers can fall back on one point: you didn't do well enough.

You weren't #1 in your class. You did not do the work necessary to take the decision out of the hands of the decision makers. You left it out in the open. You made it an argument. You left it up to chance.

And that's what UCONN, Notre Dame, Rhode Island and many others have done. They did just enough to make it a decision. How can they complain if they don't get in the tournament?

All they needed was that one signature win, or to get a win over that one bad loss. But these schools didn't do that. They left it up to chance. They didn't get the job done.

So when the brackets come out next week, and if your school isn't amongst the elite, ask yourself: did we do enough? If you did, there wouldn't be a question. You only did enough to be considered. And that just ain't enough.

read more...

Official Sports Sabbath Website

Be sure to visit Sports Sabbath, hosted by UMKC's University News. Hear me talk shit, it's quicker than reading it.

Click here!

read more...

The NHL Versus Itself

Everyone is asking, will the NHL capitalize on the the popularity of USA vs Canada? And everyone is answering with a resounding "No!". I tend to agree. But the problem is that nobody is asking the right question. We all know nothing will change. The big question is: how does the NHL capitalize on the popularity of USA vs Canada?

I was excited to find out that the first game back for both Sidney Crosby (the game winner) and Ryan Miller (the MVP) would be - wait for it - against EACH OTHER. Imagine if during the Summer Olympics, LeBron James blocked Dirk Nowitzki's game winning layup during the gold medal game of USA vs Germany, and then two days later the Mavericks played the Cavs. I would be more excited for that than the actual Olympic game. But then I found out what I should've already known; the Crosby/Miller rematch was not going to be televised.

This is why the NHL will never make the jump. You cannot be a fan of that which you cannot see. It's why college basketball and football make billions but college baseball is a niche sport. The only time you see college baseball is during the College World Series, much like the Stanley Cup. It's time to get hockey on TV.

Of course, ESPN doesn't want it. Fox Sports probably doesn't either. But Versus shows NHL games. Why not make Versus just a hockey channel? Wouldn't a 24/7 NHL station get better ratings than reruns of "Wild and Wacky Sports" or whatever hunting program is on at ten in the morning?

All the NHL would need to do is request very little money from the channel itself. Let Versus keep all the profits. Why would Gary Bettman agree to this? Because the money he doesn't get from Versus would be made back tenfold from the increased fanbase. All you needed to do was by up a bunch of advertising on ESPN the day after, market the Crosby/Miller rematch, and watch the ratings soar. Have Canadian/American panels discuss the game for weeks. Bank on it.

Instead, the NHL is just going to hope that the game was good enough to get you hooked. It wasn't. You need big plans to become a big sport, and while baseball is begging someone to take them over, Bettman refuses to spend the money necessary to make the money hockey needs. He has to force-feed hockey into America's mouth. If left to choose, we'll take the NFL Combine over NHL playoffs every time. You know why?

Because the Combine is on television.

read more...