1. Calling
Bob Knight a hypocritical asshat is an insult to
hypocrites, asses and hats, but I admit that I
used to be a huge fan back in the day when he was the ultimate in cartoonish sports
characters. Since I never had to go through the
four-year basketball version of Funny Games (two
words to all those former Hoosier basketball players who
swear by Knight: Stockholm Syndrome), I loved all the
crazy
stories and all the blowups and all the drama
surrounding Knight when he used to matter. And that's part
of the current problem with his work on ESPN; he's no
longer relevant as a basketball coach, and he
hasn't been for about 15 years.
Let's get a few things out of the way. He's Bob Knight,
not Coach Knight. Being a coach isn't like being a
former President of the United States where you get a
lifetime designation of honor. If you're not actually
the coach of a team, you're no longer Coach ____.
Second, he can spin it any way he wants to, but Knight
is now part of the media. For all his posturing and all
his ugly putdowns of the writers and broadcasters who
made him such a
mega-star, he sure changed his tune in a real hurry once
he needed to get back in the spotlight. But that's fine.
To go 13-year-old girl on you here, it is what it is.
I have no problem with Knight's history of being a jerk,
you are who you are, and I have no problem with him
selling out to the Boo-Ya Network over the last few
years (remember the disaster that was Knight School?).
I have a problem with him being bad. Really, really bad.
While he's not at the Joe Montana/Emmitt Smith level of
ineptitude as an in-studio analyst, and he occasionally
comes up with a quirky-funny line or two, it's painfully
obvious that the all-time winningest college basketball
coach has absolutely no knowledge about the current
game.
Knight isn't giving any real X and O insight, he has the
TV personality of a footstool, and worst of all, he doesn't know
anything about any of the
teams which means 1) he didn't do his homework and isn't
properly prepared, 2) is lazy, or 3) did the legwork and
is completely and totally inept at relating it to the
viewer.
He has stepped into the trap of falling in love with the
team he watches play well once. Lee Corso does the same
thing, but he's actually good at what he does as an
entertaining television personality. Over the conference
tournament week, Knight obviously watched whatever game
was happening that day and overgushed about the hot team
without being able to properly analyze what was
happening in a larger context. To be a great analyst
like a Jay Bilas or a Kirk Herbstreit you have to study
the teams, watch hundreds of games, and be able to
compare and contrast a Pitt to a USC to a Michigan State
to a Kent State to have a proper frame of reference to
see the difference between a great game and a great
team. And that's what's so infuriating to me.
Time and again sports figures will throw out the notion
that they can do what we in the media do while we
couldn't do what they do. I'm not saying that writing a
column or being a TV analyst is the same as being able
to throw a 95 mile-per-hour fastball or winning 900
college basketball games, but there's actual work
involved in being a part of the media. Bilas, Digger
Phelps and Dick Vitale, flaws and all, have actually
worked on doing what they do to provide informed,
entertaining analysis and opinions, and for a guy like
Knight who demanded perfection, as unattainable as it
might have been, out of his teams every time they walked
out on the floor for a practice or a game, he's now
insulting me, the viewers, and everyone who gets so into
this time of the college basketball season by being such
a train wreck.
Of course, Knight's been exactly what ESPN wanted. He's
been Led Zeppelin selling out to Cadillac; his becoming
what he used to abhor has created a stir and a buzz by
itself. People are writing about him and the broadcasts,
and as bad as he might be, everyone is paying attention.
Since he's not going anywhere this March Madness season
and ESPN is unavoidable at this time of the year, I need
him to be better.
2. Great
job, Georgia, now go prepare for the NIT.
Although I absolutely love what the Bulldogs did in the SEC
tournament, winning four games as an underdog to take the league
title, I also believe that four memorable days of basketball does
not trump four months of mediocrity. Before going on a tear,
Georgia was 13-16, losing games to East Tennessee State and Tulane,
and barely showing a pulse in January and February in conference
play. Teams like the Bulldogs that find themselves in March for a
brief period of time should get a nice piece of hardware for the
trophy case, but they should not get an automatic bid to the NCAA
tournament. By doing so, it devalues the importance of the regular
season and robs some other deserving at-large program from getting
an opportunity to play in the Big Dance. Where’s the equity for
Arizona State, which went 19-12 in the Pac-10 with a young and
exciting team? Or Virginia Tech, which was 19-13, finishing in
fourth place in the ACC? Ole Miss, Ohio State, Illinois State…all
more deserving than Georgia to earn one of those coveted 65 spots to
keep their season going in the only tournament that matters this
time of year.
Hats off to Georgia and coach Dennis Felton. In the face of
difficult odds and unusual circumstances, you delivered one of the
great memories in the history of Bulldog basketball last weekend.
You didn’t, however, deserve an automatic berth into the
tournament. Not at 17-16. It’s something conference honchos might
want to ponder in the future, or else the regular season loses some
of its relevance and the tournament loses a deserving team.
3. After witnessing yet another Selection Sunday in which some
agonizing decisions were made by the men's basketball committee, I was reminded of the enduring problem with the postseasons of both
Division I football and Division I hoops: there aren't clear standards
for championship contenders or qualifiers.
Yes, each season will provide its unique quirks, quandaries and
questions, but within reasonable limits, these sports (football and
hoops) need to do a better job of laying out the exact needs of their
participants when it comes to contending for national championships in
national competitions.
In football, there isn't yet a uniform consensus about the need for
conference champions to contest national championships. Oklahoma was
allowed into the 2004 Sugar Bowl, so even though LSU got the nod over
Georgia last season, the sport of college football still lacks clear and
definite guidelines for the BCS process.
In basketball, the mysterious RPI punished Arizona State more for
scheduling cupcakes than it rewarded the same Sun Devils for beating
Xavier and Stanford. On the other hand, Kentucky's losses to
Gardner-Webb, Georgia and San Diego, among others, weren't held against
the Wildcats. In the realm of the mid-majors, South Alabama--with one
really good non-conference win against Mississippi State--got in, while
Illinois State and Virginia Commonwealth--from leagues with RPIs higher
than the Sun Belt (South Alabama's league)--were left out.
Where's the consistency?
The Selection Committee didn't do that bad a job, given the abundance of
mediocrity in this year's field (few bubble teams stepped up this year,
in a scenario unlike anything seen in recent memory), but it still
irritates that head-to-head sweeps (Arizona State over Arizona) and
strong small-conference finishes (Illinois State and VCU) don't get
rewarded.
There are three huge issues that need to be faced by the leaders and
decision makers in college basketball:
1) Conference RPI. If the ACC really did have the No. 1 RPI and the Big
East really did have the No. 5 RPI, then shouldn't Virginia Tech have
gotten in over Villanova? (I think Nova had a much better case, but
that's a different argument.) If RPI is discounted on the conference
level, why should it be given credibility on the individual level, which
was clearly the reason why Arizona got in and Arizona State didn't.
2) The strength of schedule factor. As is the case in college football,
teams need to be given credit for scheduling teams before the season,
not just on actual season performance. Arizona State scheduled Illinois
and LSU (Arizona scheduled Illinois, too, so the Wildcats--who beat the
Illini--shouldn't be compared to Arizona State in this case), but
because the Illini and Tigers surprisingly stunk this season, Herb
Sendek's team was left holding the bag. That's not right. If teams play
events like the Maui Invitational but don't reap RPI points as a result,
the committee should downplay an RPI of 82 and use some common sense.
3) The value of mid-major excellence. The committee admittedly can't be
too specific, but it should be more transparent in telling mid-majors
what they need to achieve in a given season. Illinois State and Virginia
Commonwealth had seasons not that different from South Alabama, but
didn't make the field. Illinois State finished a strong second in the
No. 7 RPI league (Missouri Valley), and then made the tournament final.
VCU won its league by three games, and won one game in its conference
tourney, before losing in the semis. The committee needs to be more
definite in telling mid-majors what they need to do in and out of
conference. South Alabama's win over Mississippi State isn't a
mind-blowing win (Mississippi State couldn't beat a tired Georgia team
in the SEC semis, fer cryin' out loud; the SEC is horrible in basketball
this season), but it seemed to carry more weight than VCU's dominating
conference season and Illinois State's second-and-second combo (regular
season and tournament). I'm not saying South Alabama didn't deserve it's
bid; what is being said is that points of inconsistency need to be
addressed. Illinois State, realizing the Missouri Valley's multi-bid
identity over the past few years, went into this season feeling that a
strong second-place finish in the league would have been enough,
especially if complemented by an appearance in the tournament final.
Much like Arizona State, though, the Redbirds found that what seemed to
be enough wasn't enough. That's a problem, and there's no reason why--in
hoops or in football--teams can't be given more complete information
about how much they need to accomplish in order to compete for titles.
There's The NIT For A Reason
By
John
Harris
4.
Just like any male with a pulse, I
love March Madness. Love the first Thursday. Love the last
Monday. Love everything in between. Love the Cinderella. But, the
one thing that I love the most is the fact that it’s 64 teams.
Okay, so the play-in game, err first round game, allows 65 into the
dance, but dealing with one extra team is okay. Dealing with an
additional 64? Not so much.
I have listened to
one coach after another for the last two to three years covet,
politic and practically beg for the NCAA to make the move to 128
teams. Why? Well, an NCAA trip may keep some of their brethren out
of hot water by ‘earning’ a trip to the Big Dance. Perhaps it’s
because they believe it would be a reward for kids to experience the
tournament. Maybe there are other reasons, but it’s starting to
make me ill to hear it. Quite honestly, only ten to 12 teams have a
true chance to win, so the other 50 or so teams are just along for
the experience. If there are another 64 teams along for the ride,
too, this will go from being March Madness to March Insanity.
Trying to come up
with another quality 64 teams is a joke. 163 teams had a winning
record in all of college basketball (only 98 of them won 20 games,
which should be a benchmark) – how many of them should be rewarded
for an above average season? 80% of them? That’s ridiculous. 64
is the perfect number and shouldn’t be changed. Uh, 65, I mean.
5. Being a college
football guy, it's against every fiber of my sensible
being to allow anyone who finished sixth in their
conference race to have a shot at the national title
(just like I despise the idea that the New York Giants,
who weren't the best team in their own division, are now
considered the champions of the entire NFL). It doesn't
make any sense and it's the reason why the college
basketball season is so irrelevant to the non-die-hards.
With that said, I'm putting in the request for next year
that all coaches, analysts and hoop heads stop their
whining about the supposedly deserving bubble teams that
didn't get into the dance.
It's this simple: if you're considered a bubble team,
you don't deserve to play for the national title. If you
get in, count your blessings and move on. If you don't
get in, then you're not good enough. Period.
Again, it doesn't make any sense. Virginia Tech's Seth
Greenberg went on his rant about how his Hokies deserve
to get into the tournament to have a shot at the
national title right after they lost in the ACC
tournament. So, you can't win your league
tournament, but you should still get into the big one?
Arizona State was a mid-level Pac 10 team yet it
supposedly has a beef? No. Sorry.
