March 25, 2008
A Suggested Resolution For the Media
Last week, I wrote about the inordinate attention paid to the Rockets’ winning streak in the NBA and to Tiger Woods’ winning streak in PGA events. Now both are history and the real records – the ones belonging to the LA Lakers and to Byron Nelson – were never seriously in danger. It would be a good resolution for media folks to make for themselves only to begin to rhapsodize about the greatness of winning streaks in the NBA when the streak extends beyond 24 games or when a golfer has won 8 PGA tournaments in a row. That would mean there might – I said might – be a serious assault on the extant records. Oh, and with the golf record specifically, I think it would a whole lot more interesting if the person making the assault on the record winning streak played more than once a month picking and choosing among the courses he or she might compete upon…
One look at the NCAA tournament brackets for the men and the women gives you an insight into a fundamental difference between men’s collegiate basketball and women’s collegiate college basketball. More than a couple of lower seeded men’s teams pulled off the upset against teams with “bigger reputations”. In the women’s tournament, chalk prevails. In the first round of the women’s tournament, exactly two lower seeded teams advanced; neither went to the Sweet 16. The women’s bracket is set up to allow a Tennessee/Connecticut game in the finals. You don’t think that the Women’s Selection Committee made sure that might happen, do you?
The men’s East Bracket is pure chalk; the four teams left were seeded one-through-four. And UNC’s demolition of Arkansas might be a good argument for the incorporation of a “mercy rule” in college basketball. That game was not in doubt after the first five minutes of play. In the Midwest Bracket, the teams left were seeded one, three, ten and twelve. All of the #1 seeds are still alive but half of the #2 seeds have gone home already.
My two favorite Big East teams, Georgetown and Pitt, did not advance to the Final Four as I predicted; in fact they are back on campus already while teams that finished significantly below them in the regular season and/or the Big East Conference Tournament play on. That makes the men’s tournament more interesting because it is less predictable or formulaic. One of those “lesser Big East teams” is Villanova. On the Great Monday of Whining after the men’s brackets were announced, Villanova was one of the teams cited as being less worthy of inclusion than certain favorite “mid-major teams” whose destiny in life is to get screwed by that Selection Committee. I have not heard any apologies from the people who wrote that the inclusion of Villanova was a crime against humanity only slightly below the level of the one ongoing in Darfur at the moment.
Even some of the so-called mid-majors are not immune from critical scorn on the Great Monday of Whining. I heard several people say that Davidson might have been seeded too high despite having won 22 straight games entering the first round of the tournament. After all, they didn’t beat anybody notable in that streak went the logic behind that criticism. Well, Davidson has now won 24 straight games; they are scheduled to play Wisconsin next; they have already sent Gonzaga and Georgetown home.
Western Kentucky has been another pleasant surprise – unless you are a player for or a fan of Drake and/or San Diego. The shot they hit to beat Drake had to come from 35 feet away and hit nothing but net. Against San Diego, they continued to shoot well. Can they get to the Final Four and be this year’s version of George Mason? They can if they continue to shoot the way they have been shooting…
If there is anything formulaic about the men’s seeding and selection processes, it would be the automatic berths given to some of the minor conferences. I know that it is good and noble to give teams in the Ivy League and the Patriot League and the MEAC and etc. a chance to participate and to have a brief moment in the sun. But most of those teams do little to advance the cause of including more and more of the “little guys”. Please consider Mississippi Valley State and their showing this year. They lost to an offensively challenged UCLA team by 41 points. I know; other #1 seeds blew out their first round opponents too. However, UCLA held Mississippi Valley State to 29 points for the game. Recreation league teams for twelve-year-olds often score more than 29 points in a shorter game that the 40 minutes Mississippi Valley State was on the floor.
Travel back in time to December 2007 and you’ll find a game between Mississippi Valley State and Washington State - - another PAC-10 team. In that contest, Washington State won the game 71-26 limiting Mississippi Valley State to a total of 9 points in the second half. I sure hope the notes on those halftime adjustments for that game found their way into the recycle bin…
The beauty of the men’s tournament is that you never know what will happen. But so long as some of the “little guys” who make the tournament leave in such humiliating fashion, the idea of adding more “little guys” and breaking the hegemony of the “big time programs” isn’t going to advance very quickly.
ESPN.com ran a men’s bracket contest this year and it drew 3.65 million entries. None of those entries had all of the 32 first round games picked correctly; in fact, the best selections had only 30 of the 32 games right and there were only 51 of them. On the obverse, there was an entry that picked every one of the first 32 games incorrectly. And if you think about it, that is as difficult a feat as picking all of the games correctly.
A little over a week ago, the Seattle Supersonics lost a game to the Denver Nuggets in which the Nuggets scored 168 points - - in a regulation game. That’s bad enough but consider for a moment to the monumental understatement by Sonics’ coach, PJ Carlissimo:
“We didn’t offer any defensive resistance at all.”
I should say not. This line could probably have been uttered with equal insightfulness by Charles de Gaulle in reference to the French Army’s performance against the Germans in 1940.
Finally, an observation from Chris Harry last weekend in the Orlando Sentinel:
“Dallas is interested in Pacman [Jones]; they traded for Tank Johnson last year. Is a front-office post for O.J. next?”
But don’t get me wrong, I love sports…
The women’s game is different in that a George Mason can use transfers, former military, foreign players, and late bloomers to compete in the men’s game. But no women’s program at a non-BCS/elite school can hope to do the same.
since the women’s does not have such appealing professional prospects, good women’s players want to get to the best team. Men want to get to a team where they can start and get playing minutes.
Since there many more suburban white women’s players, schools with good academics can do better since they can appeal to women players interested in the college setting. The other alternative for a women’s program is to have a black coach and all black female players such as Rutgers.
There are simply too many Div. I basketball programs. At least a third of them could be relegated to Div. II and no one outside the schools themselves would notice or care.
peter,
I think one of the reasons that many schools have moved up is that NCAA division I are limited in the number of Division II schools that they can schedule. At one time, NCAA schools could even schedule NAIA schools.
I also believe that the costs of having a Divsion I program is about the same as a Division II program but that the income is much less.
Curmudeon: A recent fossil discovery is of a three horned dinosaur species in Mexico, with what the scientists say is the largest head of any land animal to ever exist. It has not been named yet, but a suggestion here might be Triceratops Barrybondsus.
Superdestroyer, I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about pro prospects. A talented young player for the men can dream of the money he can make as a pro, but that incentive isn’t there for women. The WNBA is struggling and so the appeal for women to play basketball just isn’t on the same level. The men’s college programs have the luxury of choosing from a large pool of athletes. You are right, also, that the few good women players eye the UConns and the Tennesses.
I think the diversity of women players may say something about how exploitive the men’s game is. For most athletes, a professional career in the NBA is a pipe dream, and hopefully, these players have a back-up plan lined up in the colleges or universities that they attend. For the working poor, basketball may seem like a way out, but success is only certain to the Lebrons and Kobes of the world.
Folks:
Good points here from all of you - - even the one about Triceratops Barrybondsus.
In NCAA football and men’s basektball, a more level playing field happened when the NCAA reduced the number of scholarships that schools could offer. that spread out the talent leaving no “dynasties” and creating more good teams.
In women’s basketball, there are not sufficient numbers of outstanding players out there such that the top schools don’t fill up with top players all the time. Women’s basketball remains in the “dynastic mode”. Either more good players need to show up quickly or the NCAA will have to step in with severe restrictions on numbers of scholarships at the top schools to get out of “dynastic mode”.
It was more than just the reduction of scholarships. With the expansion of television networks, many more college football and men’s basketball games are on television. Instead of being second string player at Miami or Florida State, high school players can be the starter at South Florida or Central Florida. Or instead of coming off the bench at Indiana, a basketball player can start at Butler or Xavier.
In the women’s basketball game, television exposure is not a significant selling point. Starting instead of coming off the bench is less important to the women’s players. More women players would rather come off the bench and win at Stanford, Tennessee, or Connecticut rather than start Gonzaga, Middle Tennese State or Umass.