The PTI guys were all in favor of David Stern's apparent plan to attempt to create a 5-team division consisting of teams in Europe.
I don't get it. That would give the league 7 divisions of 5 teams. Last time I checked, 7 is a prime number. What does that mean? Well, it's only divisible by 1 and itself. Do any of the major sports leagues have 3 divisions? 5 divisions? Nope. We've seen 4, 6 and 8. Why? They aren't prime, they are divisible by 2, allowing an even split between the AL/NL, AFC/NFC, East/West, etc. So, what - Mr. Stern - are you proposing as a system to determine playoff teams? Maybe we could add an NBA Far East (which would go in the Western Conference, of course) too!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
On "Bad" Officiating
Skip Bayless liked the foul call in the Villanova v. Georgetown game. While I usually appreciate Skip's point of view (even if I don't agree with it), I'm not sure I'm buying his claim that there was a "collision". There was a minimal amount of contact far from the basket. In all likelihood, Georgetown wouldn't have got a shot off, much less make a basket to prevent OT. While it might not have been a bad call by rule, if you apply the spirit of the rule (as my HS coach always questioned "Advantage gained?") ... well ... let's just say it wasn't the best call that could have been made. The best call would have been a no call.
In the Rutgers v. Tennessee game, I'm not sure what caused the clock to stop. But, from my view of the replay, it appears that Kia Vaughn (I think that's who it was) is pulling down Nicky Anosike as soon as Anosike grabs the rebound, which is about the same time the clock stopped (maybe 0.1 seconds later - which would have been 0.1 seconds left on the clock). What I don't know is why the Scarlet Knight decided to pull Anosike down from behind. I'm pretty sure Anosike wouldn't have been able to get the shot off before the clock expired if the clock had been running properly. The problem was, she was blatantly fouled before she was able to put the ball back up. Maybe the clock stopped because a whistle blew when Anosike was fouled? It's a difficult loss for Rutgers, but I don't think the officiating really caused them to lose it.
In the Rutgers v. Tennessee game, I'm not sure what caused the clock to stop. But, from my view of the replay, it appears that Kia Vaughn (I think that's who it was) is pulling down Nicky Anosike as soon as Anosike grabs the rebound, which is about the same time the clock stopped (maybe 0.1 seconds later - which would have been 0.1 seconds left on the clock). What I don't know is why the Scarlet Knight decided to pull Anosike down from behind. I'm pretty sure Anosike wouldn't have been able to get the shot off before the clock expired if the clock had been running properly. The problem was, she was blatantly fouled before she was able to put the ball back up. Maybe the clock stopped because a whistle blew when Anosike was fouled? It's a difficult loss for Rutgers, but I don't think the officiating really caused them to lose it.
What goes around ...
Is anyone surprised Indiana is facing violations related to improper phone calls? But, what was Indiana thinking hiring Sampson away from Oklahoma despite infractions in his time in Norman? At the time, I thought it was suspicious that they were protecting themselves by putting language in the contract related to violations. If they were worried about additional violations and wanted to withhold money based on violations, why hire Sampson in the first place?
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Stop 'em at 16-0
Today, I'm facing one of the toughest decisions I've had to make in quite some time: do I root for the Patriots or the Giants? Usually, I'd cheer for anyone playing the Patriots. But, if the Patriots finish their season 19-0, then maybe we won't have to hear from Mercury Morris and his cohorts every year. Then, we'll have two undefeated teams ... neither should be as annoying as the original.
But, does anyone really care which team I'll be cheering for (I'm still not sure who that will be)? I doubt it, although I'm not sure anyone will care about where I'm going with this post.
If there is evidence of more widespread cheating than has already be uncovered, I think there is only one suitable penalty. I don't want to see fines. Does $250K really hurt the Patriots? I don't want to see draft picks taken away. The Pats lost their 1st rounder, but not the much more valuable 1st rounder they received from the SF 49ers. The NFL needs to make an example of the Patriots because the Patriots have continually defied the league - I can't imagine the NFL is excited about the sideline attire of the Pats head coach.
If you aren't going to use fines and removal of draft picks, then what? My response would be to stop them at 16-0 for the next five seasons ... if they get there, that is. Otherwise, stop them at 12-4, 9-7, 6-10 or 3-13. Yep, a postseason ban for 5 years. If they've been cheating since at least the Super Bowl against the Rams six years ago, they deserve to be punished for a similar length of time. Unless you can find out exactly what happened, I would stay away from trying to change the history. But, you need to offer up a deterrent to similar rogue organizations in the future.
Who will this hurt? First and foremost, it hits the organization and owners of the team. That is where it should start. Even if the owner doesn't know about the actions of the coaches and personnel, the buck stops at the top. This kind of ruling will hurt the team because it won't be able to go to the postseason. Additionally, the team will no longer be a desirable place to play.
Second, there should be a hiring/firing freeze on coaches and personnel. If people want to come work for the Patriots, that is fine. But, no one on the staff should be allowed to leave and accept another job. It makes me sick that college coaches (Indiana's Sampson) rack up violations at one school (Oklahoma) and then just leave the penalties at the school when they take a different job. Violations should follow coaches, especially if they initiate the split (like Sampson did). It's a joke. If coaches want to leave the Patriots, they should be banned from another NFL job until the end of the penalty.
Finally, the players will be affected. But, haven't you heard that you win some and you lose some? Many people joined the Patriots to make Super Bowl runs. Well, if they benefit from cheating, why shouldn't they be punished for it. The Patriots should be required to honor all current contracts. No cuts! Why? The Patriots shouldn't be allowed to gain good will with players by saving Tom Brady and his teammates from having to play under the ban. If they allowed their stars to go elsewhere, don't you think they might be willing to come back in flocks when the ban was lifted? Additionally, the Pats should be required to put a quality product on the field (to the extent that they are able), so replacing a playoff caliber team with members of the dance and cheerleading squads, as well as some beer and hot dog vendors is not okay.
But, does anyone really care which team I'll be cheering for (I'm still not sure who that will be)? I doubt it, although I'm not sure anyone will care about where I'm going with this post.
If there is evidence of more widespread cheating than has already be uncovered, I think there is only one suitable penalty. I don't want to see fines. Does $250K really hurt the Patriots? I don't want to see draft picks taken away. The Pats lost their 1st rounder, but not the much more valuable 1st rounder they received from the SF 49ers. The NFL needs to make an example of the Patriots because the Patriots have continually defied the league - I can't imagine the NFL is excited about the sideline attire of the Pats head coach.
If you aren't going to use fines and removal of draft picks, then what? My response would be to stop them at 16-0 for the next five seasons ... if they get there, that is. Otherwise, stop them at 12-4, 9-7, 6-10 or 3-13. Yep, a postseason ban for 5 years. If they've been cheating since at least the Super Bowl against the Rams six years ago, they deserve to be punished for a similar length of time. Unless you can find out exactly what happened, I would stay away from trying to change the history. But, you need to offer up a deterrent to similar rogue organizations in the future.
Who will this hurt? First and foremost, it hits the organization and owners of the team. That is where it should start. Even if the owner doesn't know about the actions of the coaches and personnel, the buck stops at the top. This kind of ruling will hurt the team because it won't be able to go to the postseason. Additionally, the team will no longer be a desirable place to play.
Second, there should be a hiring/firing freeze on coaches and personnel. If people want to come work for the Patriots, that is fine. But, no one on the staff should be allowed to leave and accept another job. It makes me sick that college coaches (Indiana's Sampson) rack up violations at one school (Oklahoma) and then just leave the penalties at the school when they take a different job. Violations should follow coaches, especially if they initiate the split (like Sampson did). It's a joke. If coaches want to leave the Patriots, they should be banned from another NFL job until the end of the penalty.
Finally, the players will be affected. But, haven't you heard that you win some and you lose some? Many people joined the Patriots to make Super Bowl runs. Well, if they benefit from cheating, why shouldn't they be punished for it. The Patriots should be required to honor all current contracts. No cuts! Why? The Patriots shouldn't be allowed to gain good will with players by saving Tom Brady and his teammates from having to play under the ban. If they allowed their stars to go elsewhere, don't you think they might be willing to come back in flocks when the ban was lifted? Additionally, the Pats should be required to put a quality product on the field (to the extent that they are able), so replacing a playoff caliber team with members of the dance and cheerleading squads, as well as some beer and hot dog vendors is not okay.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
Not in Love with Love
Kevin Love is a very productive college basketball player. However, I don't understand the infatuation with him. Sure, he is a good outlet passer. I'll give you that. But, he doesn't finish strong above the rim inside. In fact, early in the Arizona game, he was in perfect position to go strong to the rim and backed the ball out because he was afraid of Jawann McClellan blocking his shot. He backed it out, then drove around his defender and scored. Jay Bilas thought that was outstanding ... I'm not so sure.
Then, shortly thereafter (it may have been the next UCLA possession), Love received the ball on the run outside the 3-pt line. He immediately put the ball on the floor. However, between the first and second dribble, he palmed the ball blatantly (I think he also pinned it against his side simultaneously) before proceeding to the basket. After being stopped, he was bailed out by the official on a hideous up fake, jump into the defender combo.
Is Kevin Love the next Mehmet Okur or Brad Miller? With his lack of explosiveness, it's hard to see him being a dominant low post scorer in the NBA. If he can't take it to McClellan (who averages less than 1 block per game), is he going to be able to take it to Marcus Camby, Greg Oden, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, etc. in the NBA? Love is a space eater with good skills for a post player. And, he has more height than Danny Fortson or Corliss Williamson. But, while Okur and Miller have both been all-stars (once each, right? ... I didn't check my facts on that one), I wouldn't consider either of them to be franchise players. Okur is the 3rd option for the Jazz (Boozer and Williams) and Miller was a similar piece for the Kings (Bibby, Peja, Webber). Sean May is another wide body who was very productive in college (at UNC) who hasn't transitioned seamlessly to the NBA. He was a lottery pick who has been a 10 and 6 guy for the Bobcats playing about half the game.
While I'd rather have Love than OU PF Blake Griffin, I don't think he is the player K-State PF Michael Beasley is. Love is a great piece in the UCLA Bruin team puzzle. Thoughts of the NBA should wait a while. His athleticism needs to improve, as well as his effectiveness scoring in traffic. I guess he can do that playing limited minutes collecting a pay check at the next level, but why not enjoy college for a while?
Then, shortly thereafter (it may have been the next UCLA possession), Love received the ball on the run outside the 3-pt line. He immediately put the ball on the floor. However, between the first and second dribble, he palmed the ball blatantly (I think he also pinned it against his side simultaneously) before proceeding to the basket. After being stopped, he was bailed out by the official on a hideous up fake, jump into the defender combo.
Is Kevin Love the next Mehmet Okur or Brad Miller? With his lack of explosiveness, it's hard to see him being a dominant low post scorer in the NBA. If he can't take it to McClellan (who averages less than 1 block per game), is he going to be able to take it to Marcus Camby, Greg Oden, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, etc. in the NBA? Love is a space eater with good skills for a post player. And, he has more height than Danny Fortson or Corliss Williamson. But, while Okur and Miller have both been all-stars (once each, right? ... I didn't check my facts on that one), I wouldn't consider either of them to be franchise players. Okur is the 3rd option for the Jazz (Boozer and Williams) and Miller was a similar piece for the Kings (Bibby, Peja, Webber). Sean May is another wide body who was very productive in college (at UNC) who hasn't transitioned seamlessly to the NBA. He was a lottery pick who has been a 10 and 6 guy for the Bobcats playing about half the game.
While I'd rather have Love than OU PF Blake Griffin, I don't think he is the player K-State PF Michael Beasley is. Love is a great piece in the UCLA Bruin team puzzle. Thoughts of the NBA should wait a while. His athleticism needs to improve, as well as his effectiveness scoring in traffic. I guess he can do that playing limited minutes collecting a pay check at the next level, but why not enjoy college for a while?
A Steal of a Deal?
The common perception following announcement of a trade between the Mets and the Twins was that the Mets stole Johan Santana from the low-budget Twins. Generally, it is accepted that the package from the Mets was worse than the compensation the Red Sox and Yankees were willing to give the Twins at the winter meetings.
Johan Santana is a very good pitcher. The Mets probably should have won the NL East last year and are a clear favorite heading into 2008. Subtract an aging Tom Glavine and add Santana (and Pedro Martinez for a year ... if he's healthy), the Mets should be better.
But, as part of the deal, Santana is getting 7 years (the one remaining on his contract and six more) guaranteed. And, he's not coming at a bargain like Jake Peavy (~$17 million per), Santana will receive just more than $150 million, an average of approximately $21.5 million per year.
It is way too early to determine whether or not this deal is a steal for the Mets. If Santana pitches well and the Mets don't win, what have they actually gained? Or, what if all the innings on Santana's arm start to catch up with him? Santana isn't a big guy (standing just 6 ft tall), will turn 29 this spring and has logged 200+ innings in each of the last four years. If, 3 years down the road, Santana starts dealing with injury issues consistently (like Pedro Martinez did), the Mets won't be getting great bang for their buck.
I'm not sure the Twins got great value for Santana, but it might be lose-lose in this deal because the Mets could have waited a year, signed Santana for a similar deal, and not had to deal Gomez and Co.
Johan Santana is a very good pitcher. The Mets probably should have won the NL East last year and are a clear favorite heading into 2008. Subtract an aging Tom Glavine and add Santana (and Pedro Martinez for a year ... if he's healthy), the Mets should be better.
But, as part of the deal, Santana is getting 7 years (the one remaining on his contract and six more) guaranteed. And, he's not coming at a bargain like Jake Peavy (~$17 million per), Santana will receive just more than $150 million, an average of approximately $21.5 million per year.
It is way too early to determine whether or not this deal is a steal for the Mets. If Santana pitches well and the Mets don't win, what have they actually gained? Or, what if all the innings on Santana's arm start to catch up with him? Santana isn't a big guy (standing just 6 ft tall), will turn 29 this spring and has logged 200+ innings in each of the last four years. If, 3 years down the road, Santana starts dealing with injury issues consistently (like Pedro Martinez did), the Mets won't be getting great bang for their buck.
I'm not sure the Twins got great value for Santana, but it might be lose-lose in this deal because the Mets could have waited a year, signed Santana for a similar deal, and not had to deal Gomez and Co.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
