Archive for March, 2006

Some You Want More Teams?

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 31, 2006
in NCAA Tournament
. 0 Comments

Every so often the notion is raised that the NCAA Tournament should be expanded to include more teams. This year’s bearer of that particular torch is Jim Boeheim, head coach at Syracuse. Boeheim is contending that greater parity necessitates expanding the tournament to include anywhere from 3 to 10 more teams who would most likely force the creation of more play-in games before the actual tournament starts rolling. In fact Clemson coach, Oliver Purnell agrees with Boeheim on the basis that George Mason was almost left out the field.

Wait a minute, Clemson’s coach? Oh yeah, there is a relevant voice on the NCAA Tournament considering Clemson has not been it since 1998. In fact it has been that long since Clemson actually made it past Friday in the ACC Tournament! But I digress…

I would not actually be opposed to some sort of debate on this issue if I thought Jim Boeheim wasn’t complete full of it. Boeheim could care less about parity or the poor little George Masons of the world which might get shafted by the big, bad selection committee on Selection Sunday. No, what is happening here is that Boeheim is afraid that Syracuse might get shafted by the committee on Selection Sunday. In fact if Gerry McNamara misses that three pointer against Cincinnati in the first round of the Big East Tournament, then Syracuse would have been NIT-bound. Boeheim, along with all of the other Big East schools have placed themselves in a very difficult position of forming a 16 team super conference which just enough parity in that unless you are an elite team then you will have a lot of trouble putting together a winning conference record.

So Boeheim has conceived a notion that if they can add anywhere from 3 to 10 teams to the tournament, they can then slide most of the 15 or 16 seeds from low major conferences into play-in games and bring in mediocre power conference schools who are missing spots due to some of the improved play from mid-majors. In other words, schools like Syracuse(before they won the Big East tournament and got in), Florida St, Maryland, and Cincinnati would have less to worry about if they finish at .500 in their conference because by going to 68 or 75 teams the tournament has room to include more mediocrity on the 8-12 seed line. Looking at the selections from the mid-major conferences it is clear that the selection committee gave those leagues all the bids they could with the exception of Hofstra who was rated virtually the same as George Mason. Common sense says that if you add 3 to 10 teams to the field, the committee will have no choice but to go back to the middle or bottom of the power conferences and include those borderline schools in order to fill out the field. And since they are rated much higher than many of the lower one bid conferences it would mean those power school selections would be seeded in the 8-12 range.

The other major flaw I find in the argument is that it supposes the parity we are seeing means more teams should be in the tournament. This is flat wrong. The parity shown this year in college basketball means that the gap between #64 and #1 is closer than it used to be and all throughout the middle lower seeded teams will be more competitive. The last thing you want to do is add more teams to the mix and increase that gap by watering down the field. Boeheim is also operating on the mentality that as long as he can get into the tournament, maybe they can have a run similar to what they enjoyed in the Big East Tournament where they knocked off three ranked teams in succession.

Of course there is nothing wrong with that, but Boeheim’s assertion that the tournament should be tweaked to account for the George Masons of the world is disingenious since Syracuse was in the same boat as the Patriots, on the bubble. The truth is the mid-majors are maxed out on the number of teams they can conceivably put into the tournament so expanding it only helps the bubble dwelling power conference schools which in the new Big East there are plenty of. This is the bed the Big East made by forming such a powerful conference and now Jim Boeheim and his fellow conference coaches need to go lie in it. Or I have an even wackier idea. How about not scheduling cupcakes in Nov/Dec. and stop losing to the bottom feeders in your conference by 39 points before you go and ask the NCAA to bail your medicore rear end out in the form of a welfare program called “tournament expansion.”

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

Big News for UNC

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 30, 2006
in UNC Basketball
. 0 Comments

Big News Item #1

UNC forward/center Tyler Hansbrough will return for his sophomore. And this is not some off the cuff answer to some dumb reporter who asks it during the Final Four and thinks that any player who might jump to the NBA next season is actually thinking about that facing the biggest game of their college career. No, this comes from the UNC Sports Information office. And all of those speculating that he would go, Hansbrough has said he never really considered it and even though UNC coach Roy Williams present him with information that stated he would be a first rounder, Hansbrough decided to come back. UNC loses only David Noel(which is a bigger loss on the intangible side and than the tangible one) and anyone who saw Tywone Lawson play in the McDonalds All American game last night knows that he is quite possibly the second coming of Raymond Felton. UNC will be loaded. Can we start the season in like one month please?

Big News Item #2

UNC senior forward David Noel won the college slam dunk contest this evening. There is a three point and slam dunk contest for college seniors every year before the Final Four. Even though I would have loved for Noel to be otherwise occupied in Indianopolis, a win is a win right? Apparently J.J. Redick was not in the three point contest. Over at Inside Carolina there were several theories postulated for why that was the case. Some asserted that unless Redick is able to push off illegally or benefit from a moving screen he simply cannot hit his shot. Another poster express fear that a foul would be called on the ball rack if it happened to nudge Redick. I am of the opinion he simply did not plan to be there because he thought he would be playing for that elusive national title. So sorry that did work out for you J.J.

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

UNC Women in the Final Four

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 29, 2006
in NCAA Tournament and UNC Basketball
. 0 Comments

Hey, Kara Lawson, how about them apples huh?

For those that do not know Lawson is one of the studio analyst for ESPN who said she had predicted UNC would win the regional at the start of the tournament but on the eve of the regional final said Tennessee has too much experience and was playing too well. I guess having less talent and only one serious player in Candace Parker should not have been considered as factors. UNC went up big early as UT’s Candace Parker sat on the bench for 8 minutes in the first half with two fouls(now you know how Michael Jordan felt in 1984). Parker is a great player and aside from a couple of big threes from Shanna Zolman she was the only offense UT had. Ivory Latta had a so-so night for UNC but with UNC leading by just six with three minutes left, Latta put a dagger in the Vols collective heart by nailing a three from 23 feet with 2 seconds left on the shot clock. UNC moves on to Boston to face Maryland, the only team to be them this season. Duke won against UConn so there are three ACC teams in the Final Four and LSU.

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

What is a Mid Major?

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 28, 2006
in Analysis and NCAA Basketball
. 2 Comments

I had a commenter on my last post ask why George Mason was considered the first mid-major to make a Final Four since 1979 when schools like Utah and UNLV had been there and in the case of the latter actually won the title? It turns out the commenter had a legitimate point, at least technically speaking. The way the landscape of college basketball is laid out there are essentially six power conferences and then a group of good conferences which are called “mid-major” conferences. After that there are low major conferences who are one bid leagues which become #15 or #16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament. By every available definition I can find after consulting Wikepedia and the good people at the Inside Carolina message board UNLV and Utah came from mid-major conferences and are technically speaking considered mid-major schools. So, what why is the media so insisting that GM’s run is the first for a mid-major since 1979 when both Penn and Indiana St. made it to the final weekend? The most expedient explanation is that the term “mid major” is not entirely absolute and is not applied simply based on conference association. The term “mid major” is used as a label for a certain type of school or conference which produce consistently good basketball but not at the elite level. Here are the criteria of a true “mid major” as described by the label:

-Teams in a historical 1-2 two bid league(The MVC broke this mold by getting four this season)
-Teams that are generally seeded in the lower half of the bracket i.e. #8 or lower.
-Team that do not tend win more than 1 or 2 tournament games.
-Teams that tend to play most power conference opponents on the road and fail to compete with them or win.
-Teams that are generally unranked or ranked for a week than dropped at the first loss
-Teams and conferences that are generally unknown.

So how does schools like Utah, UNLV and Gonzaga fit in with this definition considering the conferences they were/are in are fit the criteria above? They don’t because their level of play raised their profile and moved them from a mid-major level to the power conference level even if their conference association is unchanged. In other words if a team excels to the point where they can actively compete and win against traditional power conference schools then they are no longer considered a “mid major.” Gonzaga is a perfect recent example of a team who made the transistion. Gonzaga was a #10 seed in the West regional in 1999 when they lost to UConn in the Elite Eight. The Zags were considered a mid-major school and their run was placed on par with the George Mason run this year. However, if Gonzaga had held on against UCLA and then beaten Memphis to make it to the Final Four would they be considered “the first mid-major since 1979 to make the Final Four?” Probably not because none of the criteria above, while applicable seven years ago, no longer applies to Gonzaga. They have been a ranked school, they have been seeded high in the tournament, they have won games in the NCAA Tourney, they are routinely winners against power conference opponents, and they are far from being an unknown commodity. UNLV and Utah had the same situation where they reached a point of being ranked and seeded high where they could beat power conference teams on a regular basis. Simply because a team plays in a weaker conference does not mean they cannot rise to the same level as a power conference elite.

What you have in the use of the term “mid major” is a nuanced label based on the evaluation of a team and not hard, fast conference designations based on records or RPI ratings. On the conference level it refers to those leagues which are not one of the power conferences. Therefore any school in that conference is considered by default to be a mid major school. That being said a school can shed its “mid major” label by moving to the elite level by beating power conference schools therefore showing themselves to be a power school from a mid major conference. This is the case for Gonzaga and was the case for UNLV and Utah. In the case of George Mason they were not totally off the radar in many respects but their conference is a mid-major conference and nothing GM had done prior to the tournament would serve to change its designation from being a mid major to an elite school.

So, while on a technical level there have been schools from mid major conferences in the Final Four since 1979 those schools were not considered to have been on the mid major level. George Mason is from a mid major conference and according to every criteria that matters prior to the tournament, they are to be considered a mid major school. Whether they will be one a week from now or move into the land of the elite is the telling question.

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

UNC Women vs Tennessee

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 28, 2006
in NCAA Tournament and UNC Basketball
. 0 Comments

So the “bracket of death” culminates this evening in Cleveland with the one loss Lady Tar Heels taking on perenniel powerhouse Tennessee coached by the women’s all time winningest coach Pat Summit. Although Duke beat these Vols by double digit earlier this year and Tennessee has had some bumps in the road due to injury, do not expect an easy road for UNC who is not playing that well at this point in the Tournament. UNC is the better team and has been all season so it will be an interesting matchup. Of course ESPN cannot help themselves from kissing up to Pat Summitt and Tennessee. Studio analyst Kara Lawson stated last night that she thought UNC would come out of the region and go to the Final Four…BUT, she felt that Tennessee was too experienced and would beat UNC Tuesday night. Someone explain to me how at the start of the tournament you predict UNC would win the region knowing full well they would probably play UT in the regional final and now when it comes down to it you flip flop and say the Vols will win. Of course it all became clearer to me when I realized Lawson played for Pat Summit at Tennessee!!! I would have thought that Pat Summit being the great coach she is would have taught Lawson a few things like having the courage to stick with a prediciton when you make it. Here is hoping Ivory Latta and gang stick the Vols with beating so bad Lawson feels it in Bristol.

In the other regional final Duke plays UConn in the Huskies backyard. Do you think ESPN wanted a UConn-Tennessee national title game bad enough to screw UNC AND Duke with horrible draws and forcing them to play teams on either their home floor or somewhere reasonably close. I hope the Heels win it all but in many ways the women’s tournament is a joke. Just ask Stanford about the refereeing last night in their regional final.

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

Got #1 Seeds?

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 26, 2006
in Analysis and NCAA Tournament
. 2 Comments

Because the NCAA Tournament doesn’t. Billy Packer and Jim Nantz asserted at the end of the Florida-Villanova game that this tournament, at least through, the first two weeks, has been the greatest ever. I would tend to agree just based on the number of games that went down to the wire and the parity shown by bouncing all four #1 seeds. As every tournament starts, you always ask it to show you something you have never seen before whether it be unbelievable finishes or some sort of incredible Cinderella story. This one has given us every bit of that to the point my BRACKET IS DONE. I HAVE NO TEAM LEFT. And stangely I am at peace. Here are my thoughts on this wackiest of Final Fours.

George Freakin’ Mason

On Selection Sunday when George Mason was revealed as the #11 seed in the East, everyone, including this blogger, said it was a bad pick. GM had lost to Hofstra twice in the final two weeks of the season and since both teams were virutally the same on paper, one would have thought that Hofstra would have gotten the nod. That turns out to have been wrong and whether the fact the George Mason’s AD was on the committee had something to do with their bid. So here is a team that by all accounts has no business being in the tournament, especially considering their starting guard Tony Skin had been suspended for striking another player in the groin during a CAA Tournament game. Now, in one respect beating a #6 and #3 is not as big of a deal since that has been done numerous times. GM then got a #7 seed in Wichita St and that was definitely a winnable game. But, playing a #1 seed long considered to be the best team in the tournament was supposed to be the end of the road. In fact GM was down 9 at halftime and all signs pointed to UConn being firmly in control. The Patriots do two things well. They play great defense and they also have a very efficient and deliberate offense. As was the case against UNC, which is built in a similar manner as UConn, GM fed the post and worked for a good shot, even if it meant using the whole shot clock.

The shocking aspect of this upset is not the fact that an #11 seed has made the Final Four, since that has already been done in 1986 by #11 LSU. And even though LSU took a tougher road that year having to beat a #6,#3,#2, and #1 to get to Dallas, LSU is also a major program and part of a major conference. George Mason is a member of the Colonial Athletic Conference which prior to this season was a one bid league via the automatic bid. George Mason has only been in the NCAA Tournament four times including this season. This consitutes the first time since 1979 a mid-major conference team has been to the Final Four. The expectation was for GM to fold under the pressure of the regional final. UConn was compared to last season’s UNC team on talent level. The only thing UConn has in common with UNC now is they both lost to George Mason in the 2006 NCAA Tournament.

Can I Get Some Offense?

Duke scored only 54 points in their loss to LSU. The UCLA-Memphis regional final produced a total of 95 points. Villanova-Boston College were tied at 51 at the end of regulation and the Texas-LSU regional final was tied at 52 at the same point. While there have been games which have produced fairly nominal scores, it is my observation that more games are falling on the low end of the scoring range. The root cause seems to be bad shooting all around. The shooting percentages have been horrible. Duke shot 27% for example and teams like Villanova and Memphis failed to find the bottom of the nets in their regional finals. It also seems that this season was replete with schools willing to execute their offenses at a more deliberate pace. Defense has also been excellence but it also seems like players just are shooting well.

Conference Supremacy?

How many people thought that the SEC would get two teams to Indianopolis followed by the Pac 10 and the CAA? Not many. Now, the ACC did not do well and was out by Elite Eight. Then again the ACC was not billed as a superconference with a record 8 bids. Say hello to the Big East with all the hype, two #1 seeds, and no Final Four teams. How about the Big 10 who lost all its teams by the end of the first weekend. The Big 12 had only Texas left and they went home on Saturday. So props to the SEC for getting two teams in and setting up a possible all SEC final. The PAC-10 is often on the raw end of any discussion involving conference prowess and UCLA is there and Washington played UConn toe-to-toe. The CAA? It will never happen again.

Tidbits

Unforuntate Quote of the Day: “I am a fighter” Tony Skinn(George Mason) who was suspended for punching another player in the groin during the CAA Tournament.

Unforunate Quote of the Day II: “We have a tapeworm in our stomach” Glen Davis(LSU) in describing how LSU was still hungry to win a national title.

The “Wow Don’t We Feel Better Now” Award goes to anyone who lost to George Mason prior to Sunday.

Only one time in the history of the NCAA Tournament has a Final Four excluded all four #1 seeds and that was in 1980 when #2 Louisville won the title over #8 UCLA. #5 Iowa and #6 Purdue were the semifinal losers.

This is the first time in the 64 team era that at least one #1 seed has not been at the Final Four.

Based on seeding, this is the third weakest Final Four field with a seed total of 20. 1980 was the second weakest at 21 and the 2000 Final Four with a #1, #5, and a pair of #8 seeds register a total of 22. Incidentally the strongest Final Four field was 1993 with three #1 seeds and a #2. The 1999 and 1997 Final Fours also included three #1 seeds and a #4 seed. Al four #1 seeds have never made it to the Final Four in one tournament.

This is only the fifth Final Four in the last 20 years that does not include Duke or UNC. Only the fourth that is absent an ACC school. And the last time the ACC or Big East did not have an school in the Final Four? 1980.

At this point George Mason could win the whole thing. And that is why we love the NCAA Tournament.

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

The Andy Katz Article, Part II

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 25, 2006
in Analysis, ESPN and NCAA Basketball
. 2 Comments

I have gotten some serious response on the Katz article I castigated here so much so I am going to examine the issue further. First of all, I think Katz basic premise was flat wrong and not because I refuse to acknowledge what Duke has done but because saying that Duke winning two games a year in the tournament against #16 and #8 or 9 seeds is comparable to winning seven straight national championship is asinine at face value. In addition to that the UCLA titles and the Duke Sweet Sixteen run are from two completely different eras so the comparison is apples and oranges, heck it may even be apples and hamburgers. The issue I originally took with Katz article was the failure to mention the Sweet Sixteen run of 13 straight UNC enjoyed from 1981-1993. It makes more sense to me that if you are going to compare a thing you should compare the same thing. Since Katz did not do it, then I will do it for him in the interest of full disclosure or some such nonsense as that.

1. Notable Differences
The first thing I need to put out there in this discussion is the notable differences between the two streaks. Duke is presently at nine and UNC ran theirs to 13 before losing in the second round of the 1994 NCAA Tournament to Boston College. It should be noted that from 1981-1984 UNC was at a #1 seed twice and a #2 seed twice which means they got a first round bye and then played the #8/9 or #7/10 winner in the second round since the field was made up of 48 teams divided into 12 team regionals. In short UNC only had to win once to make the Sweet Sixteen in the first four years. From 1985 forward when the field was 64 teams UNC won the requisite two games for nine straight years. So in terms of having to win two games to get to a Sweet Sixteen both Duke and UNC have the same streak. That being said, the fact Duke was a #1 seed eight of nine times and therefore played a #16 seed tends to almost negate the fact that UNC only had to win one game early on in their streak. Of course the fact that Duke played well enought all season long to get a #1 seed should be considered as should the fact the UNC also did the same and avoided a first round game all together. The result of this maddening logic? A wash in my opinion, with a slight edge to UNC for having the longer streak even if it was on the back of four tournaments where they only won once to get there.

2. Competition Faced
During the nine year streak for Duke, the highest seed they have ever faced is a #8 seed. On the other hand UNC has faced seeds as high as #1 on down the line. Here is the seeded teams faced by both schools during their respective streaks:

Duke(1998-2006): 16,8,16,9,16,8,16,9,16,8,14,11,16,8,16,9,16,8
Average Seed Faced: 12.2

UNC(1981-1993: 10,9,10,8,15,7,14,6,16,9,15,10,15,7,9,1,16,9,13,5,16,8
Average Seed Faced: 10.3

Of course raw numbers alone are not enough but consideration must also be given to the fact the UNC faced a #1, #5, and #6 in the second round making their road a tougher one thought some would argue that #1 Oklahama in 1990 was anything but the rank they were given. The other side of the dime on this issue is the fact that a full regular season of excellence placed them in a #1 seed so one can reasonably assume this is as difficult if not more so, considering Duke plays in the ACC, than those UNC wins over closer seeds. This again seems to be a wash to me when all factors are considered.

3. Records in the Tournament
I have concluded that it is not enough to evalute the fact that Duke or UNC was able to win two games against largely weaker opponents to get to a certain plateau in the tournament. It is also necessary to evaluate their records overall in the tournament during their respective streaks.

Duke: 4 Elite Eights, 3 Final Fours, 1 National Runner-Up, 1 National Championship, 28-8
UNC: 8 Elite Eights, 4 Final Fours, 1 National Runner-Up, 2 National Championships, 39-11

UNC has a slightly better winning percentage(.780 vs .777) and has won their Sweet Sixteen game more often(8 vs 4). UNC also made one more Final Four but also had four more years under the belt. UNC has seemingly finished the deal better winning half the Final Fours they attended during their streak while Duke only won once in three tries. Then again this, like the other factors, is a wash. UNC did better in the Sweet Sixteen but usually bowed out during the next round. Duke in 4 of the last 5 Sweet Sixteen games has lost to a lower seed and that could be considered a major issue since they were the favored team in all but the 2003 game when they were a #3 to #2 Kansas. During UNC’s streak the only Sweet Sixteen loss the suffered which could be considered a bad loss was the 1984 loss to Indiana. In 1986 and 1989 UNC lost to the eventual national champion. In 1992, UNC lost to a #1 seed as a #4 seed. It also is notable that when UNC was given a #1 seed during its streak it capitalized on it winning two titles and making three Final Fours in five tournaments as a #1 seed. Duke in 8 tournaments as a #1 seed has made only three Final Fours and won one title.

Conclusion
The chief fallacy of this discussion rests on the fact that it tends to focus on the wrong periods of success for either program. In UNC’s case there is some overlap, but the period from 1991 to present includes seven Final Fours and two titles. Duke went to six Final Fours in eight years from 1986 to 1994 including back-to-back titles which is far better than the current streak. Both programs had a downturn, Duke from 1995-1997 and UNC from 2002-2004 but at the same time both have acquitted themselves as consistant top performers on the college basketball stage. This is what makes the rivalry so intense. For the past 25 years both programs have won three titles and been to a combined 20 Final Fours. In other words Sweet Sixteen streak or not, they are both widely successful and perhaps on some nuanced level one is better than the other. In fact no one remembers which 16 teams won two game year in and year out, they only remember which team was better than the other 64. The only scorecard that really matters is the tally for national titles at each school: UNC 4 Duke 3. And if all goes well in Washington, D.C. tomorrow, UConn could be ready to challenge both schools for supremacy.

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

Great Finishes

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 24, 2006
in NCAA Tournament
. 0 Comments

Aside from the Duke-LSU game, which in reality, was a horrible game to watch from the perspective of good basketball, two other Tournament games last night provided sensational endings.

In Atlanta, Texas and West Virginia played a classic. Texas led by 12 at halftime but West Virginia on hot three point shooting got back in the game. As the game neared its conclusion, Texas led 71-68 and West Virgnia had the ball. They find Kevin Pittsnogle for the three pointer to tie the game with 5 seconds left. Now here is one of the great dilemmas in college basketball. Do you call timeout and set a play or do you immediately inbound the ball and try to get a shot off while the defense is somewhat scattered. Coaches and analysts alike are pretty evenly split on which option is the best one. I happen to think that if you have a quality veteran point guard then skip the timeout and let him run with it, especially if it is a tie game. Texas’ Rick Barnes did exactly that and point guard P.J. Tucker quickly brought the ball up and found Kenton Paulino for a three pointer as time expired. Texas wins 74-71. Hope is still alive in my bracket.

However, as thrilling as that game was, the Gonzaga-UCLA game was even better. Gonzaga was up by as much as 17 points and with 3:13 left in the game led by nine at 71-62. That would be all the points Gonzaga would score the rest of the way. UCLA started chipping away at the lead as Gonzaga would go 0-6 over the final three minutes including three missed shots by POY candidate Adam Morrison. UCLA eventually close the lead to 71-70 with 20 seconds left in the game. What followed next was nothing short of incredible. UCLA put on a full court press following a made free throw. Gonzaga inbounds to Adam Morrison in the right corner and he is immediately double teamed. Now, at this point, even with the clock running down, UCLA players do something that I think other players in the same situation should have done in every close game in the past two weeks: they played tough defense without fouling. There have been multiple games where a team needed to get the ball back and either they foul right away or fail to simply use good defense to force the turnover. In this case Morrison is trapped in the corner, so instead of fouling, the Bruins players simply hold their hands straight up and force him to lob as pass out. The pass goes J.P. Batista off the foul line who is immediately besieged by two Bruins defenders. Do they foul him? No, they actually make a play for the ball because Batista is holding it out in front of him while looking around a for his point guard who IS STANDING WIDE OPEN BEHIND HIM UNDER THE BASKET!!! In fact Batista would have been better off to throw the ball up in the air towards his basket rather than stand there holding it out where it could be easily picked out of his hands. Which is exactly what UCLA’s Jordan Farmar did. Farmar then catches a streaking Luc Richard Mbouh a Moute(wow, that is a mouthful) going to the basket for a layup with four seconds left. Gonzaga panics, throw the ball to midcourt where it is intercepted by UCLA and tied up for a jump ball. UCLA has the possession arrow, gets fouled and makes 1 of 2 free throws with 1.9 seconds left. Gonzaga throws the ball the length of the court to Batista who takes a valiant shot at the basket from 15 feet and misses off the backboard. UCLA wins 73-71. CBS announcer Gus Johnson has perhaps the best call of the tournament as UCLA gets the jump ball with four seconds left by exclaiming, “Are you kidding me?!?!” That is an often used phrase but in that moment it seemed proper and added to the annals of March Madness.

And Adam Morrison provided us with the brutal reminder of how crushing these games can be as he starting breaking down when UCLA got the jump ball and then collapsed the floor in tears when the game ended.

I guess we know which clip they will be using in One Shining Moment for the line, “When it’s done, win or lose”

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

Redick. Chokes.

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 23, 2006
in ACC Basketball and NCAA Tournament
. 0 Comments

LSU takes down Duke 62-54 in the Sweet Sixteen. J.J. Redick, the often proclaimed “greatest shooter in college basketball” hits only 3 of 19 and two free throws for a grand total of eleven points.


Ding, dong the witch is dead.

[Update]
In my post following Redick’s woeful shooting performance at Georgia Tech I wrote this:

Duke found out tonight what happens if J.J. Redick has a bad night. Fortunately for them they were playing Georgia Tech and they won 73-66. If Redick lays an egg like that in the Sweet Sixteen against someone who can actually hold it together for 40 minutes, Duke will be taking the quick flight back to RDU.

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]

Andy Katz Has A Very Short Memory

Published
by
Tar Heel Fan
on March 21, 2006
in Analysis, ESPN and NCAA Basketball
. 25 Comments

ESPN.com’s Andy Katz has written an article where he asserts that Duke’s run of 9 straight Sweet 16 appearances is so impressive that only John Wooden winning 7 straight NCAA titles and 10 in 11 years at UCLA surpasses it. Katz cites the current level of parity in college basketball as the reason why this streak will not likely be matched in the future. And he could be right, except he conveniently forgot to mention that Dean Smith and North Carolina made 13 straight Sweet 16 appearances from 1981 to 1994. In fact UNC maintained the streak by beating the #1 team(Oklahoma) in the country as a #8 seed in 1990 as well as beating a #5 seed(Alabama) in the 1992 NCAA Tournament as a #4 seed. Duke has never faced a seed higher than #8 in the second round during their vaunted streak.

Now it could be said that the first four years of the streak were easier since they occurred during the years of the 48 team field which required UNC as a higher seed to only win one game to reach the Sweet Sixteen versus the two a team must win now. Of course as Katz points out Duke has been a #1 seed eight of those nine years and since #16 seeds are now 0-88 versus #1 seeds, we can consider that first game a gimmie. The only thing UNC did in those four years was lose a national title game, win a national title game, lose in the Elite Eight, and lose in the Sweet 16 to Indiana. I think that means on average they won more than two games a year in the tournament during that span.

This is classic Mike Krzyzewski worship as practiced by most of the personalities at ESPN. I am not certain how he can, with a straight face, write and post an article lauding Mike Krzyzewski for his streak of Sweet 16 appearances when he is still five years away from surpassing the streak Dean Smith set in the 1980’s and early 1990’s. Of course Jim Calhoun thinks that UConn reaching the Sweet Sixteen in 9 out of 12 years is pretty swell, but nine straight like Duke is “incredible” Hey Jim, what would think if I told you Dean Smith went to 13 straight Sweet 16’s and 15 out of 17 years from 1981-1997. If nine straight is incredible then 13 straight must be downright miraculous.

Maybe I should cut Katz some slack since he only started writing about college basketball in the 1990’s about the time the UNC streak ended. Of course he also took the time to research what John Wooden did, you would think he would show some respect and gives some credit to Dean Smith for his accomplishment instead of glossing over 13 years of great tournament consistency in an effort to give Mike Krzyzewski another big pat on the back.

Copyright © 2006, BCB

Share This Post:
[Bloglines] [del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [MySpace] [Technorati] [Windows Live] [Yahoo!] [Email]