RCS Sidelines

The Most Asinine Column You'll Read About March Madness

2010-03-17T07:00:00Z

Dan Bickley, columnist for the Arizona Republic, is usually a very level-headed guy. He's not one of these columnists that says inflammatory things just to get a rise out of people (and get readership). But his most recent article is one of the worst I've read about March Madness this year.

He begins with a premise that many agree with (myself included), "Could anything be more recklessly stupid than expanding the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams?"

But then he strings together two pieces of evidence that have nothing to do with each other:

Many years of poaching have seriously diluted the product. The star power is low. Casual fans can identify Ohio State's Evan Turner and Kentucky's John Wall, but that's about it. The declining wattage of college basketball has dimmed the lights for everyone. Television analyst Jay Bilas said this year's tournament features the "weakest at-large field in the history of the tournament."

]]> Both of these points have validity. Stars don't stay in college for four years any more, but he kind of contradicts his point by mentioning that one of the two players that the casual fan can identify is in fact, a freshman. Then he tacks on that it's the weakest at-large field ever. If players stayed in college would that be any different? The top freshmen tend to go to the top colleges. This could actually widen the disparity between the top teams and the at-large bubble teams.

He mentions that 29 freshmen and sophomores have left early in the past two years for the NBA Draft.

Those 29 elite players likely would be part of this year's NCAA Tournament field if basketball were more like baseball, where players must stay in school for three years if they choose to attend college. Imagine guys such as Derrick Rose, Blake Griffin and Jerryd Bayless in the upcoming tournament.

Instead, they all take advantage of NBA rules, where one must be 19 years of age or one year removed from high school to sign with a team. Over time, the damage is irrefutable, inevitable.

This is where you realize his argument is completely selfish. Imagine Derrick Rose in the tournament? How about instead of imagining that, I watch him play in the NBA as one of the best guards in the game? You really think players should stay in college simply to make the NCAA Tournament better?

Then he pulls a quote from Michael Jordan:

"It's easy to make mistakes in college. You make them in the pros, and they come back to haunt you. But more than anything, you learn about the game. You learn about yourself. The game unfolds before your eyes. You feel connected with the history of the sport. And when you get to the NBA, you're ready to make a positive impact."

Alright, this makes some sense. Instead of having a tough learning curve in the NBA, you learn in college, which is a more forgiving environment (even though it's really not since college fans are much more rabid than NBA fans). But just before quoting Jordan he wrote this:

Consider the impact LeBron James and Kobe Bryant would've had on college basketball. It's a shame we all missed out on that.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? You bring up THOSE TWO? Immediately they were stars in the NBA. What could those two possibly have learned in college? Both players became All-Stars in just their second years in the league. And both players are huge fans of the game. They are both very connected to the history of the sport and are constantly humbled by any comparisons to the all-time greats.

Bring us home Bickley...

The dirty little secret is that college basketball isn't what it once was. And before they start expanding the NCAA Tournament, they need to change the rules and start keeping the best players in school.

Keep them in school? What are they, animals in cages? I'm completely against the rule that forces players to go to school for one year. Someone with a skill should be able to monetize that skill whenever they want. Would these stars staying in school make March Madness better? Yep. Would that continue to fuel the NCAA who makes billions off these athletes and gives them nothing in return? Yep.

The Week in Sports Columns, Vol. LXI

2010-03-15T16:27:29Z

A look back at the week that was in sports, through the voices that tell the stories. Did we miss a column? Let us know in the comments.

Top Columns of the Week, March 8 to March 14, 2010

1. A Warning to NASCAR: Someone Is Going to Die- Jay Mariotti, FanHouse

2. At Best, Big Ben's Image Is Shot- Mark Kriegel, Fox Sports

3. Torii Hunter Wrong on Race, Not Problems- Johnette Howard, ESPN

4. Tiger's Return Date Is Anyone's Guess- Ron Sirak, Golf Digest

5. Supposed Mega-Fight Packs No Punch- Kevin Blackistone, FanHouse

6. Joe Nathan's Injury Gives Hope to AL Central Hitters- Joe Posnanski, Sports Illustrated

7. MLB Doesn't Need Radical Realignment- John Romano, St. Petersburg Times

8. UConn Women's Streak Not As Easy As it Looks- Jeff Jacobs, Hartford Courant

9. Ombudsman on Kornheiser, Olympics and Tiger- Don Ohlmeyer, ESPN

10. Don't Judge Baylor's Griner; Cheer Her- Jason Whitlock, Kansas City Star

Snap Judgement: Poor Job of Seeding

2010-03-14T23:51:54Z

Maybe it's just me, but I think this is some of the worst work the committee has ever done. They didn't get it right on any level. I think there were some bubble problems, but that is always the case. In my opinion Florida didn't belong, and they get in as a 10 seed. But aside from the bubble teams, there are tons of problems with the seeding.

Seeded too high: Wisconsin, Vanderbilt, Clemson, Texas, California, Wake Forest, and Florida

Seeded too low: Temple, Tennessee, Gonzaga, Old Dominion, UTEP, Cornell, and Sienna

The biggest problems are at the top. I'm a Duke fan, but I'll be the first to tell you they should not be seeded above Syracuse. On top of that, they put the worst No. 2 seed (Villanova) in Duke's bracket in the South. Not putting Duke and West Virginia in the same bracket is absolutely nonsense. Instead WVU gets matched up with Kentucky, the overall number two seed, that's unfair to both Kentucky and West Virginia.

Kansas, the number one seed overall, gets rewarded with the toughest bracket of

anyone

any one seed. They get the second strongest two-seed in Ohio State and the best three-seed with Georgetown. Both Ohio State and Georgetown are better than any team in Duke's bracket.

Overall just a poor job of seeding, it seems that no consideration was taken into making the regions equal strength.

View the full bracket

Why Expand Tournament? No One Wants in This Year

2010-03-12T15:38:36Z

This could not be a worse year for proponents of tournament expansion. One reason the argument for expanding to 96 teams heated up so much during the year was because of the depth of solid teams that did not make it into the tournament last year.

In 2009 San Diego State, St. Mary's, Penn State, Creighton, Auburn, and Davidson were all among teams that either had a solid case for being included in the field of 64 and/or were really exciting to watch, but all these teams missed out. Naturally it got more people to thinking that expansion of the field of 64 was warranted, but then this year happened.

Seemingly every team that was on the bubble at the start of the week has been fighting to get off the bubble - in the wrong direction. The bubble teams from Conference-USA, Memphis and UAB, both lost to far inferior teams in the first round of their conference tournament, all but knocking them off the bubble. Same can be said for Arizona State, who lost to lowly Stanford. Seton Hall couldn't do what they needed to do to move to the good side of the bubble. With so many teams losing "must win" games, it's likely that at least one of them will still get rewarded for choking their opportunity away.

Had these bubble teams proven themselves by winning the games they were supposed to they could have put some pressure on a team like Wake Forest, who got embarrassed by horrid Miami, and have been playing awful basketball of late, but still will end up around a 10-seed in this weak field.

So to argue for expansion this year is to argue that all these teams that had ample opportunity to play themselves into the tournament, but failed to do so, deserve a spot in the field. It's ludicrous. When you don't even have 64 decent teams, why would you possibly want to expand to include 96?

Introducing the Reverse Incentive

2010-03-11T14:46:24Z

LaDainian Tomlinson was in Minneapolis on Wednesday being courted by the Vikings. The Vikings are looking to replace third down back Chester Taylor and LT could be a great fit. The veteran RB who is second all-time in rushing touchdowns and third in total touchdowns is looking to join a contender. Tomlinson has always been a class-act and he's willing to take a reduced role and play the back-up to Adrian Peterson. Tomlinson even thinks it will make him significantly more productive since he'll no longer have to carry the load.

I've got somewhat of a crazy idea here - so stick with me. Tomlinson is willing to take a reduced role but what if that role became non-existent? LT might be a great guy but he still has his pride. He doesn't want to wind up a cheerleader on the sidelines. And here's where my crazy idea comes into play - what if in the contract there was a reverse incentive?

You've head of an incentive in contracts before. If a player makes the Pro Bowl they get a bonus; if they surpass 1,000 yards they get a bonus; or if they go over 250 carries they get a bonus. Well, the reverse incentive would be something like if they didn't reach a certain number of carries they would get a bonus.

The reverse incentive would be a way for the player to ensure that the team intends on using them. In return, the player takes a bit of a paycut. It is somewhat insane because if the player plays well they receive less money than if they perform poorly. But for a certain player that just wants to contribute it ensures they will have the opportunity or else they will be compensated.

For Tomlinson, who's reaching the end of his storied career it's not only about winning a championship but also contributing on a championship team. A reverse incentive would be a way to gauge how much the Vikings think he is able to contribute.

I know it'll never happen but I do think it's an interesting idea for a player who cares much more about his legacy than money.

UConn's Streak Is Good for Women's Basketball

2010-03-09T14:30:01Z

Last night the UConn women won their 71st consecutive game. If you're not impressed by that number, here are some others:
-They haven't lost since April 6, 2008
-They've won their games by an average of 32.5 points.
-They're 3-0 against top-10 teams this year and have won those games by an average of 26.2 points.
-They've trailed for just 86 minutes of a possible 2,840 and trailed after halftime just three times.

It's been discussed whether this streak is good for women's basketball. Rutgers coach Vivian Stringer told USA Today, "It's not their fault, but it's not a great thing for the sport. How can anybody enjoy a game that is really not much of a competition?" I'm not sure how much stock you can put into Stringer's statement since her Rutgers team got absolutely blown out by the Huskies this year 73-36. Clearly she's not a fan of the streak.

For some sports, foregone conclusions are a bad thing but I'm not sure it's the case with women's college basketball. This is the type of thing that draws the non-fans in and gets more people watching women's basketball. I've been intrigued by the Huskies' dominance and have watched parts of a handful of games this year because of it. For me (and I'd imagine many others), watching Connecticut destroy an opponent is more captivating than a game between two top 10 women's teams. Well, unless one of those two is UConn and then they're one in the same.

Women's college basketball should embrace the Huskies. They are an amazing marketing tool for a sport that gets a fraction of the publicity of its male counterpart.

Eventually, this streak will be snapped. Do yourself a favor and check them out before it's history. But there's no need to rush - it would seem you have plenty of time.

The Week in Sports Columns, Vol. LX

2010-03-08T18:27:51Z

A look back at the week that was in sports, through the voices that tell the stories. Did we miss a column? Let us know in the comments.

Top Columns of the Week, March 1 to March 7, 2010

1. Crosby Makes Leap From Superstar to Legend- Bruce Arthur, National Post

2. No Control, No Excuses for Baylor's Griner- Mechelle Voepel, ESPN

3. LeBron's M.J. Tribute Is All About Business- Adrian Wojnarowski, Yahoo! Sports

4. Roethlisberger Guilty of Poor Judgment- Ron Cook, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

5. Iverson Mess Another Air Ball for 76er's- Bob Ford, Philadelphia Inquirer

6. Olympic Thrills Are No Benefit to NHL- Ray Ratto, CBS Sports

7. Expanding NCAA Tournament Is Real Madness- Terence Moore, FanHouse

8. Will Bears' Spending Spree Lead to Wins?- David Haugh, Chicago Tribune

9. Were Olympics Worth it for Vancouver?- Mark Starr, Global Post

10. McGwire Brothers are Two of a Kind- Gwen Knapp, San Francisco Chronicle

Mercury vs. Men

2010-03-05T15:30:20Z

You know that guy who was a star basketball player on his high school team but wasn't good enough to play at any level in college? The same guy who still somehow manages to bring up his playing days eight years after the fact? He's the same guy who thinks he could take on anyone from the WNBA. Well, now that guy can get his chance. The Phoenix Mercury are holding tryouts for an all-male practice squad.

"I encourage any man who thinks he is on the same level or even thinks he can outplay the women from the Mercury to put his skills to the test and tryout for the practice team," said Mercury head coach Corey Gaines. "The men who are able to stay on pace at the tryouts will definitely be helpful to my players."

This is a brilliant idea. If the NFL could get practice players equal or better than the players on their team, they'd do it (ignore the fact that those practice squad players would then be on the actual team). And before you read too much into that, I'm not saying the men are necessarily going to be better than the women (although some might be). But they almost definitely will be more physical. And that physicality will translate into a tougher Mercury team which will undoubtedly be an advantage against any opponent. As long as they get a good talent pool of men to choose from, this should end up helping the team.

Maybe soon that impossible question will be answered, what is the male equivalent of a WNBA player? Now if we could only see if the UConn women in the men's NCAA Tournament.

(Editors note: In the book "Andy Roddick Beat Me With a Frying Pan", the author, who played PG in high school beat a pro female player in a one-on-one game 21-14. He also gives several examples of lower level men's teams playing even with high level women's teams.)

The Week in Sports Columns, Vol. LIX

2010-03-01T18:22:07Z

A look back at the week that was in sports, through the voices that tell the stories. Did we miss a column? Let us know in the comments.

Top Columns of the Week, February 22 to February 28, 2010

1. Bettman Should Pull NHL Out of Olympics- Drew Sharp, Detroit Free Press

2. Cigars and Beer Go Well With Canada's Gold- Marcus Hayes, Philadelphia Daily News

3. A Fan-Friendly Solution to Fix the NBA- Bill Simmons, ESPN

4. A Fitting Chaotic End for Ohno's Wild Ride- Art Thiel, Seattle Post-Intelligencer

5. PGA Tour Loses Relevance Without Tiger Woods- Joe Biddle, Tennessean

6. How America Crashed the Nordic Party- Sean Gregory, TIME

7. Inside the Storm Brewing in Bristol- Jason Whitlock, Fox Sports

8. Rochette Skates Through Pain To Bronze- Rosie DiManno, Toronto Star

9. Why U.S. Has Owned the Medal Podium- Christine Brennan, USA Today

10. Kentucky's Loss Serves as a Great Lesson- Mark Story, Lexington Herald-Leader

The Greatest Web Site in the History of Time, Ever

2010-02-23T19:53:15Z

Not a lot needs to be said about NCAA Vault, it speaks for itself. The site has video of nearly every highlight from the past ten NCAA tournaments that you could want. There is full game video of every game from the sweet sixteen and beyond including highlight selections broken down by dunks, great shots, blocks, plays, finishes, MOP moments, and current stars.

If you like college basketball, you now have a distraction that can last you up until the tournament begins.

Bosses Everywhere Cringe at NCAA Vault Site - The Sporting Blog

The Week in Sports Columns, Vol. LVIII

2010-02-22T18:25:04Z

A look back at the week that was in sports, through the voices that tell the stories. Did we miss a column? Let us know in the comments.

Top Columns of the Week, February 15 to February 21, 2010

1. Tiger Gives Corporate Pitch, Not Apology- Jason Whitlock, Kansas City Star

2. Tiger Bares Soul; Let's Leave Him Alone- Jay Mariotti, FanHouse

3. Jamison Makes Cavs Title Favorites- Ian Thomsen, Sports Illustrated

4. Ohno Stakes Claim as U.S. King of Winter- Greg Bishop, New York Times

5. Daytona 500: Great American Disgrace- Mike Bianchi, Orlando Sentinel

6. Stallworth Signing Deserves Uproar, Not Apathy- Mike Freeman, CBS Sports

7. Are Olympic Skaters Playing it Too Safe- Alice Park, TIME

8. U.S., Not Canada, Is Owning the Podium- Kevin Blackistone, FanHouse

9. Learning to Live With Olympic Tape Delay- Richard Sandomir, New York Times

10. George Karl Is in the Fight of His Life- Dave Kreiger, Denver Post

ESPN Loved Tiger's Speech, But Get Me a Barf Bag

2010-02-19T17:22:45Z

Just finished watching the Tiger Woods press conference, and I think I'm going to be sick. I couldn't disagree more with ESPN's initial reaction to his statement. Naturally Woods is a huge name, and ESPN is probably hoping to get an exclusive with him, but to hear Rick Reilly and Andy North talk about how sincere and apologetic he sounded is rather ridiculous to me.

Where in any of what all of us just saw was there any form of a sincere apology? I didn't see someone who was truly sorry for hurting people around him. Instead I saw someone who seemed more worried about how much he had hurt himself and his own image. Those of you watching the ABCNews.com broadcast of the speech on Hulu were lucky enough to see a fair and honest assessment of Tiger's words. I never caught the guys last name, but when asked what he thought about the speech, ABC's analyst, who I know only as Ron, said that the whole thing was pretty bad. To paraphrase, he said the speech seemed overly rehearsed, poorly delivered and insincere considering how long Tiger waited to actually make it. I couldn't agree more.

It's sad really. Even as I'm writing this I have ESPN on in the background. It's making me sort of angry listening to the different ESPN analysts calling his speech compelling and from the heart. Isn't ESPN supposed to have the best sports minds in the world working for them? They are the top sports network in the world. I wish some of them had some integrity on this one. They're all saying exactly what I'm sure ESPN executives hoped they'd say, because now they look like the network that's on Tiger's side.

However, I am no longer on his side. I used to watch golf frequently and the main reason was Tiger Woods. Now things have definitely changed. I was willing to give him a chance after everything happened, but this is too much. Waiting three months for this is completely absurd. I'm not saying Tiger owes me or any of you anything, because, to be honest, he doesn't. But if he's going to make a speech and apologize, at least he should sound like he means it.

From the seemingly rehearsed raising of his voice at certain points during the speech, to the completely awkward hugs at the end, Tiger didn't show any heart or actual regret about what he did in any of this. Sure he seems regretful, but it seems to be more about how he screwed up his own life rather than how he screwed up the lives of those around him. He wanted sympathy for himself, and unfortunately that's what it seems ESPN is giving him. It's a shame that so many watch ESPN and will have that opinion hammered into their brains, but it's the sports world we live in.

To be more specific about my opinion here's a list of what I didn't like about the speech:
-The extremely ridiculous exclusiveness of the whole thing. (It was like a presidential speech almost)
-The fact that it seemed like he read off the paper when to raise his voice and look directly into the camera.
-His forgetfulness to apologize to other PGA players who have had to deal with ridiculous questions since his transgressions (I may have missed if he did apologize to them because I missed about a minute of the speech)
-His need to bring up his charity foundation. (I understand he wants to apologize to them but it seemed more like he was trying to point out all the good things he does)
-The strategically planned camera placement that showed the audience. (His mom and two other women were main fixtures of the picture, which seems planned considering women are likely the most offended by his actions)
-The awkward and seemingly planned hugs at the end of the speech. (Like he wouldn't have been able to hug them when the cameras weren't rolling)
-On a side note: I hate the fact that before the speech PGA officials said that anyone heckling Tiger at all at a tournament will be kicked out immediately. That's not just exclusive to vulgarities either. Any heckling at all will not be tolerated. They say it's because they want to protect the integrity of the game. That's Funny.

The Week in Sports Columns, Vol. LVII

2010-02-15T18:37:01Z

A look back at the week that was in sports, through the voices that tell the stories. Did we miss a column? Let us know in the comments.

Top Columns of the Week, February 9 to February 14, 2010

1. Shame on the Olympics for Fast-Track Tragedy- Jay Mariotti, FanHouse

2. Daring Play Calling Wins Saints the Super Bowl- Josh Levin, Slate

3. Expanding NCAA Tourney Is Worst Idea Ever- Gene Wojciechowski, ESPN

4. Frank Thomas Is Deserving of Cooperstown- Phil Rogers, Chicago Tribune

5. New Orleans Will Forever Be Brees' Town- Jeff Duncan, New Orleans Times-Picayune

6. Sports-Pocalypse: Hoping for a Lockout Grand Slam- Ray Ratto, CBS Sports

7. Danica Learns Despite Wreck in NASCAR Debut- Lee Spencer, Fox Sports

8. Injured Vonn Facing Downhill Drama- Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports

9. The Night the Tar Heels' Season Died- Seth Davis, Sports Illustrated

10. Wade's Critical Comments Are No Big Deal- Israel Gutierrez, Miami Herald

The Week in Sports Columns, Vol. LVI

2010-02-08T18:55:53Z

A look back at the week that was in sports, through the voices that tell the stories. Did we miss a column? Let us know in the comments.

Top Columns of the Week, February 1 to February 8, 2010

1. NFL Braces for Storm of Its Own Making- Michael Wilbon, Washington Post

2. How Florida Pulled Top Recruiting Class- Pat Dooley, Gainesville Sun

3. Kovalchuk Trade Is Sad, Expected Ending- Jeff Schultz, Atlanta Journal Constitution

4. For Tomlinson, All That's Left Is Goodbye- Tim Sullivan, San Diego Union-Tribune

5. Danica Looks Like She Belongs- Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports

6. Picking Hall of Fame Class Was Brutal- Vic Carucci, NFL.com

7. In the Shadow of the Olympics- Greg Bishop, New York Times

8. Tim Tebow: Cultural Warrior?- Tom Krattenmaker, USA Today

9. Accusation Casts Doubt on Irvin's Sincerity- Jason Whitlock, Kansas City Star

10. Learning to Be a Better Role Model- Gilbert Arenas, Washington Post

Pay Homage to Gamblor - Super Bowl

2010-02-05T11:00:43Z

It's time for the most gambled upon event of the year, with at least $90 million to be spent in Vegas alone it's the degenerates Christmas, Super Bowl Sunday.

Never is there another day so in tune with the philosophy of 'gambling makes everything better.' People bet on everything for the Super Bowl - the traditional bets are there as well as MVP, player prop bets, team prop bets, commercial bets, halftime bets, coin toss bets, anything you want.

Side note on the halftime show - Isn't it kind of funny that the Super Bowl is on CBS and The Who will be playing the Super Bowl Halftime Show? The Who also happens to be the band that sings the theme song to all three CSI shows, CBS's cash cow. The Super Bowl is also in Miami, the home of the most annoying of the CSI shows. Even though I like the Who I'm hoping CBS goes really overboard with some sort of cross-promotion involving David Caruso being on the pre-game and post-game shows, and dancing at center stage for the entire halftime set.

You want to make six bets specific to Donald Brown? Not a problem, sports books have you covered. Who scores first? How many yards each player accounts for? Completion percentages? How many tackles certain players get? Yep, it's all there, ready to make you rich, or more likely, take your money. Unless you bet the over on four camera shots of Archie Manning, because there's no way CBS doesn't show him at least eight times.

]]>

Now, on to the actual game, which has the potential to be a highly entertaining offensive slugfest. I'm concerned however, because we have never had three good Super Bowls in a row, and the last two Super Bowls were unquestionably awesome. But I'm saying (hoping) we break the trend and are treated to yet another awesome Super Bowl.

The Colts are favored by five points in the game, but most people are acting as if the Saints are some sort of huge underdog. Lest we forget, this is the same team that started the season 13-0 and has the most diverse offensive attack in the NFL. That said, the Colts are still the better team and the smart pick to win the game. However, I am for the Saints, and I will try to find a way to justify picking them.

The Saints aren't going to stop Manning, but they know that. They are just going to try to slow him down a little bit and hope to win the turnover game. The Saints defense isn't great, but they know what they are and what they can do - and their strength is in forcing turnovers. Obviously they can't expect another five turnover game like the Vikings gave them, but if they win the turnover battle they have a very good shot at winning the game.

Just as the Saints aren't going to stop Manning, the Colts aren't going to stop the Saints. The Colts defense is strong enough to stop a one dimensional offense, but the Saints have too many weapons. Everyone knows about the passing game, but people seem to brush over the fact that the Saints had the sixth best rushing attack in the NFL as well. Throw in the fact that a hobbled Dwight Freeney will be in the game and the Saints offense should be able to move the ball with relative ease. If they are smart they will run right at Freeney when he is in as he won't be able to change directions fast enough on his bum ankle to shift from pass rushing to tackling a running back zipping by him.

Despite all this information, it's very hard to look past the fact that the Colts are the best team in the NFL. I don't think the Saints will be able to pull it out in the end, but they will be close enough to cover.

Colts 34, Saints 31