Every year, there's a great amount of backseat driving after the NCAA Tournament field is announced. Questions are asked about why certain teams made it and others didn't and why this team got this seed or was sent to play there or drew this matchup. Usually the committee chair provides reasonable answers to these questions so that, even if you don't necessarily agree with their logic, the explanations make you feel comfortable enough with the bracket that was put together.
But this year, there are way too many of those questions, and the reasons given for those questionable choices didn't really do it for me. And I'm not the only one. It goes beyond the bubble teams, too. People are never satisfied with the bubble teams that make it over those that don't. There were oddities all over the bracket.
I think, this year especially, the common consensus isn't how great a job the committee did. It's more, "What were they thinking?" A few examples of what I mean...
Syracuse and Tulsa? I'm not going to get into which bubble teams I think should've made it. San Diego State, St. Bonaventure, South Carolina, Monmouth, Saint Mary's, Valparaiso, etc., all had legitimate arguments for being the field. And I agree with the committee that all of the No. 1 seeds losing in mid-major conference tournaments didn't help matters (because it dropped all those teams onto the bubble instead of in with automatic bids). But it's hard to justify putting Syracuse and Tulsa in the tournament over any of them.
Tulsa came so far out of left field that they themselves probably thought they had no shot and were preparing for an NIT game. It's also hard to justify Tulsa's selection. They got smacked by Memphis twice, including once in the American tournament, and Memphis isn't good. The committee obviously thinks very highly of The American for some reason. Tulsa was the fourth team from the conference to get in, and ineligible SMU was the best team in that league.
As confusing as the Tulsa selection is, the Syracuse choice is downright infuriating. Because not only did they put Syracuse in the tournament, they put them directly in the field. No play-in game for them. Nope, apparently the same Syracuse team that lost to eight-win St. John's and finished ninth in the ACC was better than all of those mid-major bubble teams (more on the ACC in a minute).
There are two things that really bother me about the Syracuse selection. The first is that the committee chairman pretty much admitted that they took the fact Jim Boeheim missed nine games into account. Why? Why were they rewarded for playing nine games without their coach? Especially when he missed those games because of an NCAA-issued suspension because of violations the program committed. There are plenty of valid reasons for a coach to miss games. An NCAA suspension isn't one.
What bothers me more, though, is that they gave Syracuse credit for its strength of schedule, which is inherently unfair to non-Power 5 programs. Yes, Syracuse played North Carolina and Duke and Virginia on the road. Those were conference games! ACC teams automatically have a strong schedule because they play other ACC teams. Same thing with Big Ten teams. Same thing with Pac-12 teams. Talk about non-conference strength of schedule all you want. That's fine with me. But don't give Power 5 teams credit for playing other Power 5 teams in January and February. Those are called conference games.
Likewise, they asked him directly about Monmouth, a team that pretty much everyone agreed did everything that the committee asks of mid-majors, yet still didn't get in. He said that the overriding thing that they couldn't shake about Monmouth was three losses to the bottom-200 in the RPI. Two of those three losses were conference road games! It's a little ridiculous to expect mid-majors to go undefeated in conference play just to have a shot at an at-large.
Vanderbilt and Michigan are perfectly justified in my mind. If I had my choice of the two SEC teams, I would've gone with South Carolina, especially since Vanderbilt got crushed by Tennessee in the SEC Tournament, but I can make my peace with the Commodores. Same with Michigan. They were probably out until they beat Indiana in the Big Ten Tournament. Personally, I thought they'd need to beat Purdue, too, but apparently just beating Indiana was enough.
It wasn't limited to confusing bubble selections that were difficult to justify. There are plenty of things about the bracket itself that have resulted in significant second-guessing. Such as...
Virginia over Michigan State for the fourth No. 1 seed? Oregon getting a 1-seed is fine. They were going to the West no matter what, so it doesn't really make a difference if it was as 1 or 2. But how did Virginia get one over Michigan State? The committee clearly thinks very highly of the ACC, seeing as the team that finished second in that conference in both the regular season and tournament was deemed worthy of a No. 1 seed. Over a Michigan State team that won the Big Ten regular season and tournament and is the consensus third-best team in the field behind Kansas and North Carolina.
Most people just assumed Michigan State was going to be a 1-seed, especially after they won the Big Ten Tournament. Villanova losing their 1-seed after they lost to Seton Hall at least makes sense. But what's the reason Michigan State didn't get one? At least they put Michigan State and Virginia in the same region, where the Spartans will actually be closer to home in Chicago.
Why does the Holy Cross-Southern winner have to go all the way to Spokane? Among all the things on the bracket, this is the one I found the most perplexing. The winner of the Holy Cross-Southern First Four game has to fly to Spokane to play Oregon. Spokane is not exactly near Dayton.
They needed a Friday site. I understand that much. And Oregon is the only 1-seed with a Friday game, which made Spokane their only option. (Had Villanova beaten Seton Hall, I'm sure they would've gotten the winner in Brooklyn on Friday.) But this is definitely a problem of their own making, and it's one that's easily solved. You know how? Making Michigan State a 1-seed! Michigan State is playing in St. Louis, which is significantly closer to Dayton than Spokane. They also could've put Kansas in St. Louis instead of Des Moines (and Kansas, as the No. 1 overall seed, theoretically should play a First Four winner).
For that matter, why is Kansas in the South instead of the Midwest when Louisville and Chicago are approximately the same distance from Lawrence? Now they have Virginia making a significantly longer trip to play a virtual road game against Michigan State in the Regionals. And don't tell me they didn't move Villanova out of the East on purpose. The Regional is in Philadelphia. They were protecting North Carolina from having to play the Wildcats on what's essentially their home floor.
Some of the stuff involving seedings and who's playing where I can make my peace with much more easily. Making that bracket can't be easy, so the committee does have my utmost respect for doing that job. Except this year, they left themselves open to much more second-guessing than usual. And the answers to those questions weren't great.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Sunday, March 13, 2016
Joe's Bracket (Women)
Unlike the men's tournament, the four top seeds on the women's side have been pretty clear for a while now. UConn, Notre Dame, South Carolina and Baylor have three losses between them (and the losses for Notre Dame and South Carolina were to UConn). So, the only real question is whether somebody else can crash the Women's Final Four.
Well, that and if Breanna Stewart will truly go down as the greatest player in the history of women's college basketball. Before she becomes the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft by the Storm and wins an Olympic gold with Team USA in Rio, she'll go for another undefeated season, her fourth straight national title, and her fourth straight Final Four Most Outstanding Player. If that all does happen, I don't see how you can make an argument that any player had a better college career than Stewart.
Of course, it's not a foregone conclusion that UConn will win the national title, even if it seems like that. When Brittany Griner was a senior, Baylor was the defending champions and the clear No. 1 overall team...and instead of a coronation, Baylor was upset in the Sweet 16 by Shoni Schimmel and Louisville. While this UConn team is much better than that Baylor squad, and there isn't a team in the country that's on their level, the image of Griner walking off the court after that Louisville game is still there in my head. I don't want to see Breanna Stewart end her college career the same way.
As for everybody else, a lot of people have been talking about Tennessee and whether or not the Lady Vols will even make the tournament. Tennessee has played in every NCAA Tournament, and I fully expect that streak to continue. They've absolutely struggled by Tennessee standards this season, even dropping out of the Top 25 at one point, but are they one of the 32 best available at-large teams? Yes they are. Will Tennessee contend for the national title? Probably not. Will they be in the tournament? Absolutely.
With all that out of the way, it really comes down to figuring out what order the other three No. 1 seeds go in. Baylor's the one that lost to somebody other than UConn, so they're No. 4 overall and get the Huskies in the Final Four. That leaves Notre Dame and South Carolina. The order doesn't really matter, since they'd face each other before one has to face UConn again, but I'm making UConn No. 2 and South Carolina No. 3.
Which leaves us with a bracket that looks something like this...
BRIDGEPORT
Storrs: 16-Robert Morris at 1-Connecticut, 8-Seton Hall vs. 9-Duquesne
Tallahassee: 13-Chattanooga at 4-Florida State, 5-DePaul vs. 12-Florida Gulf Coast
Lexington: 14-Troy at 3-Kentucky, 6-Arizona State vs. 11-Iowa
College Park: 15-Buffalo at 2-Maryland, 7-Georgia vs. 10-Kansas State
DALLAS
Waco: 16-Idaho at 1-Baylor, 8-Washington vs. 9-Vanderbilt
College Station: 13-Albany at 4-Texas A&M, 5-Oklahoma State vs. 12-Army West Point
Coral Gables: 14-South Dakota State at 3-Miami, 6-Florida vs. 11-Indiana
Corvallis: 15-Central Arkansas at 2-Oregon State, 7-BYU vs. 10-Colorado State
LEXINGTON
Notre Dame: 16-Alabama State at 1-Notre Dame, 8-George Washington vs. 9-Missouri
Stanford: 13-Hawaii at 4-Stanford, 5-Mississippi State vs. 12-Green Bay
Columbus: 14-Liberty at 3-Ohio State, 6-Tennessee vs. 11-Middle Tennessee
Austin: 15-Iona at 2-Texas, 7-St. John's vs. 10-James Madison
SIOUX FALLS
Columbia: 16-North Carolina A&T at 1-South Carolina, 8-South Florida vs. 9-NC State
East Lansing: 13-Northern Iowa at 4-Michigan State, 5-Syracuse vs. 12-Penn
Los Angeles: 14-New Mexico State at 3-UCLA, 6-West Virginia vs. 11-San Francisco
Louisville: 15-Belmont at 2-Louisville, 7-Oklahoma vs. 10-Purdue
Well, that and if Breanna Stewart will truly go down as the greatest player in the history of women's college basketball. Before she becomes the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft by the Storm and wins an Olympic gold with Team USA in Rio, she'll go for another undefeated season, her fourth straight national title, and her fourth straight Final Four Most Outstanding Player. If that all does happen, I don't see how you can make an argument that any player had a better college career than Stewart.
Of course, it's not a foregone conclusion that UConn will win the national title, even if it seems like that. When Brittany Griner was a senior, Baylor was the defending champions and the clear No. 1 overall team...and instead of a coronation, Baylor was upset in the Sweet 16 by Shoni Schimmel and Louisville. While this UConn team is much better than that Baylor squad, and there isn't a team in the country that's on their level, the image of Griner walking off the court after that Louisville game is still there in my head. I don't want to see Breanna Stewart end her college career the same way.
As for everybody else, a lot of people have been talking about Tennessee and whether or not the Lady Vols will even make the tournament. Tennessee has played in every NCAA Tournament, and I fully expect that streak to continue. They've absolutely struggled by Tennessee standards this season, even dropping out of the Top 25 at one point, but are they one of the 32 best available at-large teams? Yes they are. Will Tennessee contend for the national title? Probably not. Will they be in the tournament? Absolutely.
With all that out of the way, it really comes down to figuring out what order the other three No. 1 seeds go in. Baylor's the one that lost to somebody other than UConn, so they're No. 4 overall and get the Huskies in the Final Four. That leaves Notre Dame and South Carolina. The order doesn't really matter, since they'd face each other before one has to face UConn again, but I'm making UConn No. 2 and South Carolina No. 3.
Which leaves us with a bracket that looks something like this...
BRIDGEPORT
Storrs: 16-Robert Morris at 1-Connecticut, 8-Seton Hall vs. 9-Duquesne
Tallahassee: 13-Chattanooga at 4-Florida State, 5-DePaul vs. 12-Florida Gulf Coast
Lexington: 14-Troy at 3-Kentucky, 6-Arizona State vs. 11-Iowa
College Park: 15-Buffalo at 2-Maryland, 7-Georgia vs. 10-Kansas State
DALLAS
Waco: 16-Idaho at 1-Baylor, 8-Washington vs. 9-Vanderbilt
College Station: 13-Albany at 4-Texas A&M, 5-Oklahoma State vs. 12-Army West Point
Coral Gables: 14-South Dakota State at 3-Miami, 6-Florida vs. 11-Indiana
Corvallis: 15-Central Arkansas at 2-Oregon State, 7-BYU vs. 10-Colorado State
LEXINGTON
Notre Dame: 16-Alabama State at 1-Notre Dame, 8-George Washington vs. 9-Missouri
Stanford: 13-Hawaii at 4-Stanford, 5-Mississippi State vs. 12-Green Bay
Columbus: 14-Liberty at 3-Ohio State, 6-Tennessee vs. 11-Middle Tennessee
Austin: 15-Iona at 2-Texas, 7-St. John's vs. 10-James Madison
SIOUX FALLS
Columbia: 16-North Carolina A&T at 1-South Carolina, 8-South Florida vs. 9-NC State
East Lansing: 13-Northern Iowa at 4-Michigan State, 5-Syracuse vs. 12-Penn
Los Angeles: 14-New Mexico State at 3-UCLA, 6-West Virginia vs. 11-San Francisco
Louisville: 15-Belmont at 2-Louisville, 7-Oklahoma vs. 10-Purdue
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Joe's Bracket (Men)
It's been an interesting year in college basketball. About 75 teams have valid arguments for being included in the field of 68, and no one can even agree who the four No. 1 seeds are (well, people agree on Kansas and Villanova, but not the other two). All I know is that we're in for a great NCAA Tournament. There are going to be plenty of upsets, and I don't even know who'll be considered the "favorite." I am pretty sure, though, that Kansas will be the No. 1 overall seed should they win the Big 12 Championship Game.
There are still a couple days to go, so bubble teams in the BCS conferences can still play their way in or out, while Monmouth and Saint Mary's have to just sit there and wait. Louisville and SMU being ineligible for the tournament certainly helps their cause, though. Both of them would've been in, so that's two spots now available that otherwise wouldn't have been.
Regarding Monmouth, Jay Bilas made a great point during the MAAC Championship Game. Yes, they have some "bad" losses, but those came in conference road games. But they also have a bunch of good wins over high-profile opponents, virtually all of which came on the road (because nobody wanted to play them at their arena). They've done everything the Committee tells a mid-major they need to do in order to get an at-large bid. If they don't get in, what kind of a message does that send?
So, yes, Monmouth is in my field. So is UConn after that phenomenal four-overtime win over Cincinnati. So is Michigan, which wasn't even on anybody's radar, but has played its way in. As for my remaining two 1-seeds. North Carolina is better than Virginia. They'll prove it in the ACC Championship Game. And I don't know why nobody has Michigan State on the 1-line. They're the second-best team in the country behind Kansas.
Now that the stage is set, it's time for me to reveal my bracket. My 1-seeds, in order, are Kansas (Midwest), North Carolina (South), Villanova (East) and Michigan State (West), which means my Final Four matchups are Midwest vs. West and South vs. East. (I took a guess on who I think will win the conference tournaments that are still going on in one-bid leagues.)
MIDWEST (Chicago)
Des Moines: (1) Kansas vs. (16) Austin Peay/Holy Cross; (8) Colorado vs. (9) Wichita State
Oklahoma City: (4) Texas A&M vs. (13) Stephen F. Austin; (5) Purdue vs. (12) Arkansas-Little Rock
Brooklyn: (3) Miami vs. (14) Old Dominion; (6) Baylor vs. (11) Oregon State
St. Louis: (7) Wisconsin vs. (10) Saint Joseph's; (2) Xavier vs. (15) Stony Brook
WEST (Anaheim)
St. Louis: (1) Michigan State vs. (16) Hampton; (8) Providence vs. (9) Texas Tech
Denver: (4) Duke vs. (13) Green Bay; (5) Arizona vs. (12) San Diego State
Providence: (3) West Virginia vs. (14) Iona; (6) Dayton vs. (11) Pittsburgh/Michigan
Spokane: (7) Texas vs. (10) Butler; (2) Oregon vs. (15) New Mexico State
SOUTH (Louisville)
Raleigh: (1) North Carolina vs. (16) Florida Gulf Coast; (8) VCU vs. (9) Cincinnati
Providence: (4) Maryland vs. (13) Yale; (5) California vs. (12) South Dakota State
Des Moines: (3) Kentucky vs. (14) UNC Wilmington; (6) Notre Dame vs. (11) Monmouth/Saint Mary's
Oklahoma City: (7) Seton Hall vs. (10) Connecticut; (2) Oklahoma vs. (15) Montana
EAST (Philadelphia)
Brooklyn: (1) Villanova vs. (16) Jackson State/Fairleigh Dickinson; (8) South Carolina vs. (9) USC
Spokane: (4) Iowa State vs. (13) Chattanooga; (5) Indiana vs. (12) Akron
Denver: (3) Utah vs. (14) Hawaii; (6) Iowa vs. (11) Northern Iowa
Raleigh: (7) Temple vs. (10) Gonzaga; (2) Virginia vs. (15) UNC Asheville
There are still a couple days to go, so bubble teams in the BCS conferences can still play their way in or out, while Monmouth and Saint Mary's have to just sit there and wait. Louisville and SMU being ineligible for the tournament certainly helps their cause, though. Both of them would've been in, so that's two spots now available that otherwise wouldn't have been.
Regarding Monmouth, Jay Bilas made a great point during the MAAC Championship Game. Yes, they have some "bad" losses, but those came in conference road games. But they also have a bunch of good wins over high-profile opponents, virtually all of which came on the road (because nobody wanted to play them at their arena). They've done everything the Committee tells a mid-major they need to do in order to get an at-large bid. If they don't get in, what kind of a message does that send?
So, yes, Monmouth is in my field. So is UConn after that phenomenal four-overtime win over Cincinnati. So is Michigan, which wasn't even on anybody's radar, but has played its way in. As for my remaining two 1-seeds. North Carolina is better than Virginia. They'll prove it in the ACC Championship Game. And I don't know why nobody has Michigan State on the 1-line. They're the second-best team in the country behind Kansas.
Now that the stage is set, it's time for me to reveal my bracket. My 1-seeds, in order, are Kansas (Midwest), North Carolina (South), Villanova (East) and Michigan State (West), which means my Final Four matchups are Midwest vs. West and South vs. East. (I took a guess on who I think will win the conference tournaments that are still going on in one-bid leagues.)
MIDWEST (Chicago)
Des Moines: (1) Kansas vs. (16) Austin Peay/Holy Cross; (8) Colorado vs. (9) Wichita State
Oklahoma City: (4) Texas A&M vs. (13) Stephen F. Austin; (5) Purdue vs. (12) Arkansas-Little Rock
Brooklyn: (3) Miami vs. (14) Old Dominion; (6) Baylor vs. (11) Oregon State
St. Louis: (7) Wisconsin vs. (10) Saint Joseph's; (2) Xavier vs. (15) Stony Brook
WEST (Anaheim)
St. Louis: (1) Michigan State vs. (16) Hampton; (8) Providence vs. (9) Texas Tech
Denver: (4) Duke vs. (13) Green Bay; (5) Arizona vs. (12) San Diego State
Providence: (3) West Virginia vs. (14) Iona; (6) Dayton vs. (11) Pittsburgh/Michigan
Spokane: (7) Texas vs. (10) Butler; (2) Oregon vs. (15) New Mexico State
SOUTH (Louisville)
Raleigh: (1) North Carolina vs. (16) Florida Gulf Coast; (8) VCU vs. (9) Cincinnati
Providence: (4) Maryland vs. (13) Yale; (5) California vs. (12) South Dakota State
Des Moines: (3) Kentucky vs. (14) UNC Wilmington; (6) Notre Dame vs. (11) Monmouth/Saint Mary's
Oklahoma City: (7) Seton Hall vs. (10) Connecticut; (2) Oklahoma vs. (15) Montana
EAST (Philadelphia)
Brooklyn: (1) Villanova vs. (16) Jackson State/Fairleigh Dickinson; (8) South Carolina vs. (9) USC
Spokane: (4) Iowa State vs. (13) Chattanooga; (5) Indiana vs. (12) Akron
Denver: (3) Utah vs. (14) Hawaii; (6) Iowa vs. (11) Northern Iowa
Raleigh: (7) Temple vs. (10) Gonzaga; (2) Virginia vs. (15) UNC Asheville
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Lamenting the Big East Gone By
One of my earliest sports memories is from when I was seven years old. My dad got tickets to the championship game of the 1990 Big East Tournament from his boss, so we hopped on the train to watch UConn-Syracuse. The game was played on the afternoon of Selection Sunday then, and we were up in the nosebleed seats in The Garden, the ones that were that ugly purple color until the renovations. I was rooting for Syracuse, but UConn won the game (and its first Big East championship). I've been a Huskies fan ever since.
Fast forward four years. My sister is a freshman at Providence, and the Friars pull off an upset of UConn in the semifinals. We go as a family to the title game and sit in the Providence student section, about 15 rows from the court. After Providence wins (its only Big East title before the realignment), we join in the celebration with the rest of the students.
The Big East has always been my favorite conference, and the Big East Tournament has always been my favorite. I haven't attended it in person since 1994, but I always get excited around Big East Tournament time. There's just something about it that feels right. From The Garden to the tradition to the rivalries to the classic games, it has always been the perfect conference tournament in my eyes.
There's no denying that the Big East Tournament, like the conference itself, isn't what it once was. We can thank Boston College, Syracuse and all the others for that. It definitely didn't feel right to watch a Syracuse-Pitt conference tournament game this afternoon that was played somewhere other than Madison Square Garden. It's still tough to wrap my head around the fact that those two schools are in the ACC now.
I can't help but miss those days. It's just not the same with Syracuse and UConn and Notre Dame and, to a lesser extent, Louisville, missing. After the Big East expanded to 16 teams, they had four games a day for three straight days before the semifinals on Friday night and that Saturday night championship game.
No offense to Creighton, Butler and Xavier, but they're not the first names you think of when you think of the Big East. You think of the six-overtime game between UConn and Syracuse. You think of that epic 1996 tournament, which might've been the best conference tournament in any conference in history. You think of Gerry McNamara and Kemba Walker single-handedly winning championships (and in Kemba's case, single-handedly winning the NCAA title, too). But, most of all, you think of Madison Square Garden.
When the Big East and American split into two conferences, there were two things the Big East wanted to keep. The name and The Garden. They got to keep both. And they should've. Because a Big East Tournament without Syracuse and Boston College is bad enough. But seeing Georgetown play Villanova somewhere else, while East Carolina faced Central Florida at The Garden would've been something different entirely. The Big East belongs at Madison Square Garden. The tournament being played somewhere else seems wrong on so many levels. And as bad as it is that UConn isn't part of the fun anymore, that's better than the alternative.
So, even though we're in year three since the conference was gutted and split in two, this "new" Big East has still taken some getting used to. But, you know what? It's still the Big East. And it's still the Big East Tournament. And it's still special. And I still get amped up for it. How could I not? Conference tournament time is one of the best weeks of the year.
Fast forward four years. My sister is a freshman at Providence, and the Friars pull off an upset of UConn in the semifinals. We go as a family to the title game and sit in the Providence student section, about 15 rows from the court. After Providence wins (its only Big East title before the realignment), we join in the celebration with the rest of the students.
The Big East has always been my favorite conference, and the Big East Tournament has always been my favorite. I haven't attended it in person since 1994, but I always get excited around Big East Tournament time. There's just something about it that feels right. From The Garden to the tradition to the rivalries to the classic games, it has always been the perfect conference tournament in my eyes.
There's no denying that the Big East Tournament, like the conference itself, isn't what it once was. We can thank Boston College, Syracuse and all the others for that. It definitely didn't feel right to watch a Syracuse-Pitt conference tournament game this afternoon that was played somewhere other than Madison Square Garden. It's still tough to wrap my head around the fact that those two schools are in the ACC now.
I can't help but miss those days. It's just not the same with Syracuse and UConn and Notre Dame and, to a lesser extent, Louisville, missing. After the Big East expanded to 16 teams, they had four games a day for three straight days before the semifinals on Friday night and that Saturday night championship game.
No offense to Creighton, Butler and Xavier, but they're not the first names you think of when you think of the Big East. You think of the six-overtime game between UConn and Syracuse. You think of that epic 1996 tournament, which might've been the best conference tournament in any conference in history. You think of Gerry McNamara and Kemba Walker single-handedly winning championships (and in Kemba's case, single-handedly winning the NCAA title, too). But, most of all, you think of Madison Square Garden.
When the Big East and American split into two conferences, there were two things the Big East wanted to keep. The name and The Garden. They got to keep both. And they should've. Because a Big East Tournament without Syracuse and Boston College is bad enough. But seeing Georgetown play Villanova somewhere else, while East Carolina faced Central Florida at The Garden would've been something different entirely. The Big East belongs at Madison Square Garden. The tournament being played somewhere else seems wrong on so many levels. And as bad as it is that UConn isn't part of the fun anymore, that's better than the alternative.
So, even though we're in year three since the conference was gutted and split in two, this "new" Big East has still taken some getting used to. But, you know what? It's still the Big East. And it's still the Big East Tournament. And it's still special. And I still get amped up for it. How could I not? Conference tournament time is one of the best weeks of the year.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Sharapova's Surprise Announcement
So...it turns out Peyton Manning wasn't the only one who had a press conference today. Maria Sharapova had some news of her own. She failed a drug test during the Australian Open and now faces a suspension from tennis. For how long? Who knows?
According to Sharapova's explanation, she failed the test because of meldonium, a drug she's been taking since 2006 but was only added to the banned list in January. She takes it for a number of health issues, and she made sure it was legal when she began taking it. Sharapova continued to check every year, and every year it was legal. Until this year. Apparently she received an email with the updates to the list in December and didn't notice that it had been added.
Meldonium was banned because, when taken in high doses, it can improve blood-flow and increase endurance. Not surprisingly, many of the athletes who've been suspended for using meldonium since Jan. 1 are long-distance runners, cyclists or biathletes. The dosage Sharapova was taking was much lower, so you can argue the performance-enhancing benefits. But, a rule's a rule, and it's banned no matter the dosage. As a result, Sharapova will be suspended.
To her credit, Sharapova took full responsibility for everything. Whether you believe she simply made an honest mistake (which I do) or think she knew exactly what she was doing and was trying to get away with it is up to you. But I don't think she has anything to hide here. She knows how much she stands to lose, which is probably why she was so forthright about it. Maria Sharapova isn't just the richest female athlete in the world (due mainly to her other business ventures and endorsements), she's also the biggest draw in women's tennis not named Serena Williams. If she's guilty of anything other than a simple mistake, that's all gone. Her career will be tainted and she'll be forever labeled a cheat, which I don't think she is.
I'm sure there are plenty of skeptics who've been following what's going on with the Russian track team (which is currently banned from international competition) and assume that Sharapova's guilty of more simply because she's Russian and took a drug that's made in Latvia. But, in response to that, I feel the need to point out that Sharapova may have a Russian passport, but has lived in the U.S. for years and currently calls LA home. She doesn't live and train in Russia. She's not a "cheater" to the same degree as those track & field dopes. Not by a long shot.
We'll see if the ITF and WTA believe her version. The rules call for a four-year ban if it was taken deliberately for the purpose of performance enhancement, while the penalty tops out at two years if it was deemed unintentional. Two years would fall in line with the common suspension we see for PED use in other sports. But...there's also a provision that says a ban can be further reduced (or even dropped entirely) if there are mitigating circumstances, which Sharapova's lawyers believe there are here.
It's highly unlikely that Sharapova will get off without a suspension of some length. She's guilty. She's admitted that much. It's the degree of her guilt (and the intent is a key here) that's still to be determined, and that's what will determine the length of her suspension. My guess is that they'll find her explanation plausible and give her anywhere from six months to a year, effectively ending her 2016 season.
Sharapova won't go to Rio (that whole thing about her needing to play Fed Cup to be on the Olympic team is irrelevant now). She won't play in any of the remaining three Grand Slams. Her ranking will take a massive hit. She won't get any prize money or appearance fees. She'll probably lose some sponsors. Those are all reasonable consequences.
What I do know, though, is that we haven't seen the last of Maria Sharapova on a tennis court. She wanted to make it perfectly clear that she isn't retiring. Sure she's 28, but Serena Williams is 33 and she's the best player in the world. Maria Sharapova will come back. And she'll have something to prove. Because there are suddenly a lot of doubters out there wondering if her career is legitimate.
Yes, it's shocking. Yes, it's her fault. But let's not rush to make Maria Sharapova the villain in all this, either. She made a mistake. And she's going to pay dearly for it, Shouldn't that be enough?
According to Sharapova's explanation, she failed the test because of meldonium, a drug she's been taking since 2006 but was only added to the banned list in January. She takes it for a number of health issues, and she made sure it was legal when she began taking it. Sharapova continued to check every year, and every year it was legal. Until this year. Apparently she received an email with the updates to the list in December and didn't notice that it had been added.
Meldonium was banned because, when taken in high doses, it can improve blood-flow and increase endurance. Not surprisingly, many of the athletes who've been suspended for using meldonium since Jan. 1 are long-distance runners, cyclists or biathletes. The dosage Sharapova was taking was much lower, so you can argue the performance-enhancing benefits. But, a rule's a rule, and it's banned no matter the dosage. As a result, Sharapova will be suspended.
To her credit, Sharapova took full responsibility for everything. Whether you believe she simply made an honest mistake (which I do) or think she knew exactly what she was doing and was trying to get away with it is up to you. But I don't think she has anything to hide here. She knows how much she stands to lose, which is probably why she was so forthright about it. Maria Sharapova isn't just the richest female athlete in the world (due mainly to her other business ventures and endorsements), she's also the biggest draw in women's tennis not named Serena Williams. If she's guilty of anything other than a simple mistake, that's all gone. Her career will be tainted and she'll be forever labeled a cheat, which I don't think she is.
I'm sure there are plenty of skeptics who've been following what's going on with the Russian track team (which is currently banned from international competition) and assume that Sharapova's guilty of more simply because she's Russian and took a drug that's made in Latvia. But, in response to that, I feel the need to point out that Sharapova may have a Russian passport, but has lived in the U.S. for years and currently calls LA home. She doesn't live and train in Russia. She's not a "cheater" to the same degree as those track & field dopes. Not by a long shot.
We'll see if the ITF and WTA believe her version. The rules call for a four-year ban if it was taken deliberately for the purpose of performance enhancement, while the penalty tops out at two years if it was deemed unintentional. Two years would fall in line with the common suspension we see for PED use in other sports. But...there's also a provision that says a ban can be further reduced (or even dropped entirely) if there are mitigating circumstances, which Sharapova's lawyers believe there are here.
It's highly unlikely that Sharapova will get off without a suspension of some length. She's guilty. She's admitted that much. It's the degree of her guilt (and the intent is a key here) that's still to be determined, and that's what will determine the length of her suspension. My guess is that they'll find her explanation plausible and give her anywhere from six months to a year, effectively ending her 2016 season.
Sharapova won't go to Rio (that whole thing about her needing to play Fed Cup to be on the Olympic team is irrelevant now). She won't play in any of the remaining three Grand Slams. Her ranking will take a massive hit. She won't get any prize money or appearance fees. She'll probably lose some sponsors. Those are all reasonable consequences.
What I do know, though, is that we haven't seen the last of Maria Sharapova on a tennis court. She wanted to make it perfectly clear that she isn't retiring. Sure she's 28, but Serena Williams is 33 and she's the best player in the world. Maria Sharapova will come back. And she'll have something to prove. Because there are suddenly a lot of doubters out there wondering if her career is legitimate.
Yes, it's shocking. Yes, it's her fault. But let's not rush to make Maria Sharapova the villain in all this, either. She made a mistake. And she's going to pay dearly for it, Shouldn't that be enough?
Sunday, March 6, 2016
The Sheriff Rides Off Into the Sunset
After 18 years in the NFL, No. 18 is going to hang 'em up. On Monday, Peyton Manning will make it official. He's retiring. We all suspected this was going to happen, so it's not actually a surprise to anyone, but this is a sad day nonetheless. We've seen one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history walk off the field for the last time. And he went out as a champion.
There's no arguing Peyton's place among the NFL's all-time greats. He's won more games than anybody, been named MVP more times than anybody, thrown more touchdown passes than anybody and thrown for more yards than anybody. He was drafted No. 1 overall and immediately turned the Indianapolis Colts from a laughingstock into a perennial contender. Then, when the Colts fired him after his neck surgery, he signed with Denver and had a historic season. And, of course, he had the perfect ending. He was a shell of his former self, but who cares? The Broncos won the Super Bowl, which was the very reason they brought Peyton to Denver.
It's, of course, the great irony of his career that he won a Super Bowl in his final season in a very un-Peyton Manning-like manner. Throughout most of the 2016 season, he was bad. In fact, you could argue he was a liability. He got hurt. He got benched. Many people thought that was it. Then he came off the bench in Week 17 and the Broncos won to clinch home field. Then he had one great drive to beat the Steelers. Then he won his final battle against Tom Brady in the AFC Championship Game. Then he turned into a game manager, as the Broncos defense won him a second Super Bowl ring.
For all his greatness over 18 years, Peyton was downright average in Super Bowl 50. He was the best quarterback on the field a month ago, but that's not exactly saying much. But, you know what? He doesn't care one bit. Because the end result was a Super Bowl championship, one that cemented his legacy.
Legacy. It's a funny thing. Winning Super Bowl 50 didn't make Peyton Manning one of the best quarterbacks ever. He'd already won a Super Bowl nine years earlier, and was named MVP of that game. But in each of his next two Super Bowl trips, he lost. And 2-2 looks a lot better than 1-3, even though 1 is still more than Hall of Famers Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton and Jim Kelly combined.
Peyton's "problem" is that he was always compared to Tom Brady, who's been to six Super Bowls, won four, and been Super Bowl MVP three times. Peyton's teams always won in the regular season, but it was Brady that had the rings. And to most people, that's all that counted. It's ridiculous, but that's the way people think. There's no way to compare them. It's like trying to argue Roger Federer is better than Rafael Nadal or vice versa. It doesn't matter. They're both great.
Perhaps more than anything else, the Manning-Brady rivalry will truly be what defines both of their legacies. For 15 years, we were treated to head-to-head duels by two of the greatest of their generation. Their teams met 17 times, and the stakes were usually high. Brady and the Patriots went 11-6 in those games, but Manning's Colts/Broncos beat New England in the AFC Championship Game three times, including twice in the last three years.
That's what I'm going to miss the most. Not the brilliant field general. Not those beautiful touchdown passes to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark and all the others. Not the no-huddle, call-the-play-at-the-line-of-scrimmage. Not "Omaha, Omaha." No. It's Manning-Brady that I'm gonna miss. Broncos-Patriots won't have quite the same cache anymore (I think you can eliminate that one as a possibility for the NFL Kickoff game).
As a Peyton Manning fan, I'm sad I'll never see my favorite quarterback on the field again. But I know he's going to do great at whatever path he chooses next, with coaching and broadcasting seeming to be the most likely candidates. And we'll still see him on TV 35 times a day in Papa John's and Nationwide commercials.
But I also owe him a debt of gratitude. Peyton Manning was great for so many years. He lifted the NFL to new heights, and the league was better for it. Fans in Indianapolis can thank Peyton Manning for turning their team into a contender and getting a new stadium built. Fans in Denver can thank him for choosing to end his career with the Broncos, an outstanding four-year run that included two AFC Championships and a Super Bowl title.
Jim Irsay said Peyton "should" retire a Colt. But Peyton doesn't owe Irsay anything. Instead, the Sheriff rides off into the sunset on a different breed of white horse.
He'll be missed, but his impact on the NFL will never be forgotten. There have been some big names to retire over the past month (Charles Woodson, Calvin Johnson, Jared Allen, Marshawn Lynch). Out of all those legends, though, there's one who's certain to be on the stage in Canton in August 2021. And you can bet all of Indianapolis (as well as plenty of folks from Denver, too) will be there.
There's no arguing Peyton's place among the NFL's all-time greats. He's won more games than anybody, been named MVP more times than anybody, thrown more touchdown passes than anybody and thrown for more yards than anybody. He was drafted No. 1 overall and immediately turned the Indianapolis Colts from a laughingstock into a perennial contender. Then, when the Colts fired him after his neck surgery, he signed with Denver and had a historic season. And, of course, he had the perfect ending. He was a shell of his former self, but who cares? The Broncos won the Super Bowl, which was the very reason they brought Peyton to Denver.
It's, of course, the great irony of his career that he won a Super Bowl in his final season in a very un-Peyton Manning-like manner. Throughout most of the 2016 season, he was bad. In fact, you could argue he was a liability. He got hurt. He got benched. Many people thought that was it. Then he came off the bench in Week 17 and the Broncos won to clinch home field. Then he had one great drive to beat the Steelers. Then he won his final battle against Tom Brady in the AFC Championship Game. Then he turned into a game manager, as the Broncos defense won him a second Super Bowl ring.
For all his greatness over 18 years, Peyton was downright average in Super Bowl 50. He was the best quarterback on the field a month ago, but that's not exactly saying much. But, you know what? He doesn't care one bit. Because the end result was a Super Bowl championship, one that cemented his legacy.
Legacy. It's a funny thing. Winning Super Bowl 50 didn't make Peyton Manning one of the best quarterbacks ever. He'd already won a Super Bowl nine years earlier, and was named MVP of that game. But in each of his next two Super Bowl trips, he lost. And 2-2 looks a lot better than 1-3, even though 1 is still more than Hall of Famers Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton and Jim Kelly combined.
Peyton's "problem" is that he was always compared to Tom Brady, who's been to six Super Bowls, won four, and been Super Bowl MVP three times. Peyton's teams always won in the regular season, but it was Brady that had the rings. And to most people, that's all that counted. It's ridiculous, but that's the way people think. There's no way to compare them. It's like trying to argue Roger Federer is better than Rafael Nadal or vice versa. It doesn't matter. They're both great.
Perhaps more than anything else, the Manning-Brady rivalry will truly be what defines both of their legacies. For 15 years, we were treated to head-to-head duels by two of the greatest of their generation. Their teams met 17 times, and the stakes were usually high. Brady and the Patriots went 11-6 in those games, but Manning's Colts/Broncos beat New England in the AFC Championship Game three times, including twice in the last three years.
That's what I'm going to miss the most. Not the brilliant field general. Not those beautiful touchdown passes to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark and all the others. Not the no-huddle, call-the-play-at-the-line-of-scrimmage. Not "Omaha, Omaha." No. It's Manning-Brady that I'm gonna miss. Broncos-Patriots won't have quite the same cache anymore (I think you can eliminate that one as a possibility for the NFL Kickoff game).
As a Peyton Manning fan, I'm sad I'll never see my favorite quarterback on the field again. But I know he's going to do great at whatever path he chooses next, with coaching and broadcasting seeming to be the most likely candidates. And we'll still see him on TV 35 times a day in Papa John's and Nationwide commercials.
But I also owe him a debt of gratitude. Peyton Manning was great for so many years. He lifted the NFL to new heights, and the league was better for it. Fans in Indianapolis can thank Peyton Manning for turning their team into a contender and getting a new stadium built. Fans in Denver can thank him for choosing to end his career with the Broncos, an outstanding four-year run that included two AFC Championships and a Super Bowl title.
Jim Irsay said Peyton "should" retire a Colt. But Peyton doesn't owe Irsay anything. Instead, the Sheriff rides off into the sunset on a different breed of white horse.
He'll be missed, but his impact on the NFL will never be forgotten. There have been some big names to retire over the past month (Charles Woodson, Calvin Johnson, Jared Allen, Marshawn Lynch). Out of all those legends, though, there's one who's certain to be on the stage in Canton in August 2021. And you can bet all of Indianapolis (as well as plenty of folks from Denver, too) will be there.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
Thoughts On Aroldis Chapman's Suspension
When the Yankees traded for Aroldis Chapman in December, they knew there was a pretty good likelihood that he would be suspended for his domestic violence incident. That's what scared the Dodgers off after he was originally set to be traded to LA. The only question regarding a possible Chapman suspension was: "How long?"
Well, we got our answer yesterday. 30 games. He had originally said he would appeal any MLB discipline, but has decided not to. For a number of reasons. As a result, Chapman's Yankee debut won't be until early May (which could end up being a good thing seeing as how overused the Yankees bullpen was last season).
Chapman taking the 30 games was probably the best result for all parties. It'll cost him over $1 million in salary, but doesn't affect his free agent status. If he'd been suspended for too long, Chapman wouldn't have been able to accumulate enough service time this season to become a free agent at the end of the year. That's important to him. So, you have to think that came into play with his decision not to appeal.
Likewise, 30 games was probably the best deal he was going to get. If he'd gotten something longer and appealed, there's no certainty it would've been reduced. It's also possible that whoever heard the appeal could've decided that it was too lenient and made it longer. And who knows when that appeal would've been heard and the ruling issued? His suspension would've started whenever that was, which could've been mid-June (or later). Now he and the Yankees know he'll miss the first 30 games at that'll be it. It takes the mystery out.
The Yankees were counting on Chapman being the closer in the ridiculous three-headed monster they built in the back of the bullpen. They'll still have that. It just won't start until May. All it means for the first month of the season is that Andrew Miller is still the closer and they need to figure out the seventh (hey, here's a novel thought: maybe the starter can go seven). But, ultimately, the Yankees will be fine. They anticipated this and made the Chapman trade anyway. I don't see this being that big a problem.
This could've created a very awkward situation for the Players' Association, which has also been avoided. Domestic violence is a very serious thing and the pro leagues need to do anything they can to prevent it. But it's the union's job to look out for the players, even if that creates an obvious conflict of interest by challenging a policy that the players themselves collectively bargained. It's especially tough here not just because the issue's so sensitive, but because the policy has only been in place since August.
Rob Manfred was in a tough spot, too. He had a relatively seamless first year as commissioner, but was challenged to act appropriately here. Chapman is the first player to be suspended under the domestic violence policy, and figuring out a punishment that fit the crime without being too harsh (and, thus, susceptible to being overturned on appeal) or too lenient (inviting the same criticism Roger Baddell got after he screwed up the Ray Rice situation so badly) wasn't going to be easy. But I think he did it here. Manfred got his point across without coming across as heavy-handed or too weak.
He'll face a much tougher call with Jose Reyes, who isn't even in Rockies camp right now. I'm sure Manfred is going to wait for the legal process to play out, but Reyes figures to face a much longer suspension than Chapman.
To his credit, Chapman realized the seriousness of his actions and understood the fact he was going to be suspended. That probably entered into his decision not to appeal. Chapman wanted to make it clear that he never laid a hand on his girlfriend, and that his gun was registered. But his actions were reckless and he knows it. That's why he doesn't own guns anymore.
Most of all, it's good for everyone that this situation was resolved before the start of the season. Chapman won't have it hanging over his head, the Yankees know how long they won't have their closer, and Manfred can focus on other matters, which will include the domestic violence case involving Jose Reyes. Everyone can move on and get ready for the 2016 season. A season which, by the way, gets underway in just over a month.
Well, we got our answer yesterday. 30 games. He had originally said he would appeal any MLB discipline, but has decided not to. For a number of reasons. As a result, Chapman's Yankee debut won't be until early May (which could end up being a good thing seeing as how overused the Yankees bullpen was last season).
Chapman taking the 30 games was probably the best result for all parties. It'll cost him over $1 million in salary, but doesn't affect his free agent status. If he'd been suspended for too long, Chapman wouldn't have been able to accumulate enough service time this season to become a free agent at the end of the year. That's important to him. So, you have to think that came into play with his decision not to appeal.
Likewise, 30 games was probably the best deal he was going to get. If he'd gotten something longer and appealed, there's no certainty it would've been reduced. It's also possible that whoever heard the appeal could've decided that it was too lenient and made it longer. And who knows when that appeal would've been heard and the ruling issued? His suspension would've started whenever that was, which could've been mid-June (or later). Now he and the Yankees know he'll miss the first 30 games at that'll be it. It takes the mystery out.
The Yankees were counting on Chapman being the closer in the ridiculous three-headed monster they built in the back of the bullpen. They'll still have that. It just won't start until May. All it means for the first month of the season is that Andrew Miller is still the closer and they need to figure out the seventh (hey, here's a novel thought: maybe the starter can go seven). But, ultimately, the Yankees will be fine. They anticipated this and made the Chapman trade anyway. I don't see this being that big a problem.
This could've created a very awkward situation for the Players' Association, which has also been avoided. Domestic violence is a very serious thing and the pro leagues need to do anything they can to prevent it. But it's the union's job to look out for the players, even if that creates an obvious conflict of interest by challenging a policy that the players themselves collectively bargained. It's especially tough here not just because the issue's so sensitive, but because the policy has only been in place since August.
Rob Manfred was in a tough spot, too. He had a relatively seamless first year as commissioner, but was challenged to act appropriately here. Chapman is the first player to be suspended under the domestic violence policy, and figuring out a punishment that fit the crime without being too harsh (and, thus, susceptible to being overturned on appeal) or too lenient (inviting the same criticism Roger Baddell got after he screwed up the Ray Rice situation so badly) wasn't going to be easy. But I think he did it here. Manfred got his point across without coming across as heavy-handed or too weak.
He'll face a much tougher call with Jose Reyes, who isn't even in Rockies camp right now. I'm sure Manfred is going to wait for the legal process to play out, but Reyes figures to face a much longer suspension than Chapman.
To his credit, Chapman realized the seriousness of his actions and understood the fact he was going to be suspended. That probably entered into his decision not to appeal. Chapman wanted to make it clear that he never laid a hand on his girlfriend, and that his gun was registered. But his actions were reckless and he knows it. That's why he doesn't own guns anymore.
Most of all, it's good for everyone that this situation was resolved before the start of the season. Chapman won't have it hanging over his head, the Yankees know how long they won't have their closer, and Manfred can focus on other matters, which will include the domestic violence case involving Jose Reyes. Everyone can move on and get ready for the 2016 season. A season which, by the way, gets underway in just over a month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)