Jack’s Blog

It’s no secret I felt Jerry Tarkanian should have been in the Hall of Fame.  Well, he finally got voted in and I didn’t blog a thing about it.  Since I, and several others, worked on righting what we saw as a wrong (for six years), allow me to share part of the four-page document I passed along to people I knew who had “juice,” people “who knew people” and media outlets (including USA Today).  The season-by-season records were naturally included; what follows is a list of items that separated Jerry from others.

Tangible reasons:

            1 – Overall record: 990-228 (81.3%); Division I: 784-202 (79.5%), 729-201 (78.4%) counting vacated games                                                                             

            2 – 4 Final Fours (’77, ’87, ’90, ’91); National Champions in 1990  

3 – 38-18 (67.9%) in NCAA Tournament games

            4 – Undefeated seasons 1963-64 (JC); 1990-91 (D-I regular season)

            5 – Won four straight Cal JC titles (1963-67)-at two JC’s (Riverside & Pasadena)

            6 – Won at least 20 games at three different D-I schools in his first year at each – (every school was way down when he got there)               

            7 – Won championships at high school, JC & D-I levels

            8 – 29 twenty-win seasons, 2^nd to only Dean Smith who had 30

            9 – Was the first to start five black players (’64 Olympic Trials, before Don Haskins’ Texas Western national champions) – and won it

            10 – 42 NBA draft picks, 12 first-rounders

Intangible reasons:

            1 – The most difficult job a coach has is to get his or her team to play hard.  Whether a coach is a supporter of Tark’s or his severest critic, no one will ever

                  say his teams didn’t play hard. 

            2 - Won playing 1-2-2 zone, full court m-m, half court pressure m-m, amoeba

            3 – His strength was his weakness: loyalty.  His biggest flaw was he didn’t hold  kids accountable because he let people be themselves.  He was the anti-

                  authoritative coach.  It was always about the players; never about him.  

            4 – What started all the controversy was when the Long Beach Press-Telegram requested he write an article and he was critical of what he felt was the

                  hypocrisy within the organization.  Many coaches feel he wrote what others thought but wouldn’t say.

            5 – How many coaches who won NCAA D-I Championships are not in the HOF?     

6 - If breaking NCAA rules disqualifies a coach from admission, there are a whole lot who ought to be asked to vacate.

            7 - He took a team that was on probation, couldn’t go to the post-season and had started 2-2 and threw out his defensive philosophy.  He changed to a 1-2-2 zone (which he 

      last used in 1972) and won 24 straight to finish 26-2; with a team that had no motivation, nothing meaningful to play for.  That’s coaching!

            8 - He always agreed to share his ideas with colleagues.  He was truly a coach’s coach.  

As much as he won, he was always incredibly nervous before games.  His famous quote was:

“A perfect season would be all practices, no games.”

Every day the list of those underclassmen who are making themselves eligible for the NBA draft lengthens.  While nearly every person I’ve talked to, listened to or read has said the national championship game between Michigan and Louisville was terrific, nearly all of them thought this year’s March Madness was one of the poorest in terms of exciting, well-played games.  Emphasis on well-played.  Maybe this year was an aberration in terms of all we’ve come to expect from March Madness or maybe the absurd number of early exits has finally caught up with the college game.  If that actually were the case, the deterioration should have happened well before now but there’s no questioning this year’s NCAA tournament was as poorly played as any in memory.

One reason could be that, usually, experience makes offenses and defenses work better.  Those teams who are composed mainly of seniors, some fifth and sixth year seniors or guys who are as old as 24 or 25, are more mature, understand the intricacies better and have greater chemistry than a group of freshmen who just got thrown together and have played a total of thirty or so games, barring injuries.  How, then, a cynic or a fan might ask, could Kentucky have won the national championship a couple years ago?

Simple.  John Calipari is a master at leading and motivating a young group, getting them all to buy into his philosophy.  However, here is a life lesson that needs to be learned and never forgotten: Above all else, talent wins out.  He recruited them, motivated them and coached them.  Had Nerlens Noel not suffered a seasoning ending injury, we might have seen those results for a second straight season.  Can one man mean that much to a team?  For that answer watch the Lakers from here on out.  Especially if they make the playoffs.  Can anyone even fathom how good Kentucky would have been, forget this year’s incoming class, if the team that won it all - relatively easily - had all returned to UK for another run?  And another?  I started my college coaching career in 1972.  That was what UCLA did.  Beat everybody to death and recruited to fill the spots left by graduation.  Simple formula that worked for quite a while.

Undoubtedly, the early entry rule changed the player’s thought process but what really flipped the college game was the color green.  The talk of giving a college kid a stipend is nice - for the good players who are planning on going to school for four years anyway.  Does anybody really think a stipend is going to change a kid’s mind when he’s looking at the possibility of a six or seven figure contract?  If he can’t make the right decision there, maybe he’s not smart enough to be in college.

Louisville’s Russ Smith has declared for the draft even though most who make up mock drafts have him going mid- to late-second round, meaning no guaranteed money.  You think he’d change his mind if the NCAA passed a $300/month stipend?  $400?  $500?  Maybe, as the old joke goes, “he loves college but hates class.”  What compounds the problem is the timing of when to leave.  OK, most guys are going to go as soon as they can.  There are others, though, who realize they need some more seasoning and another year (or more) under their current “professor” would make them a much better and more ready prospect.  And that’s where the timing dilemma comes in.

Take, for example, this year.  I don’t pretend to know even one foreign prospect.  I leave that up to my man Franny Frascilla who can tell you all of them.  As far as the college players who comprise this year’s crop, there’s not one who doesn’t have “holes” in his game?  The consensus number one pick is Nerlens Noel who’s intercollegiate career was limited to 24 games.  Even if a team is comfortable with the brief showing of his considerable skills, there has to be a concern regarding the injury.  One, did it heal properly and two, is he injury-prone, e.g. Grant Hill, Darko Milicic or the two guys no one can ever forget - Greg Oden and Sam Bowie?

The rest?  In no particular order (since different mock drafts have them in different order), the guys who are consensus top picks are: Ben McLemore, Marcus Smart, Victor Oladipo, Otto Porter, Anthony Bennett, Trey Burke, Shabazz Muhammed, Cody Zeller, Alex Len.  Let’s not forget Isaiah Austin.  He hits home because he played with my younger son, Alex, back in the 5th grade AAU days.  What makes it particularly difficult when I evaluate him is that he looks exactly the same as he did when he was ten!  From the long, lanky arms and legs to the same goggles, it’s like watching him through a magnifying glass.  There is little doubt he’s going to be a great one just as there’s little doubt he’s not NBA-ready.  Ready to start banging his slender body with the 25-30 year old men who’ve been in the league for several years, taking advantage of all the professional strength trainers and facilities.  I’m sure Baylor’s facilities are first-class, but if they were placed side by side, I’m certain the state-of-the-art NBA equipment is far superior.  Plus, the NBA isn’t limited as to how much time - or when - coaches can work with players, as do NCAA-affiliated institutions.

Having watched each of the above guys, some on multiple occasions, my belief is none of these guys are NBA-ready.  Yet they’re going to get picked high.  Why?  Because, if they all stayed in college and worked on their skills, strength and stamina . . . here is what the draft would look like: Mason Plumlee, CJ McCollum, Mike Muscala, Jeff Withey, Erick Green, Nate Wolters, Jackie Carmichael, Solomon Hill, Michael Snaer, Brandon Paul, Eric Murphy, Pierre Jackson, Richard Howell, Isaiah Canaan, Trevor Mbakwe, Rodney Williams and a whole lot of Franny’s guys from overseas.  And unless Fran has uncovered some real gems, many of those names listed would be lottery picks.  Each of those players are good prospects, but if the thought of your favorite team using a lottery pick on any of them gives you a warm a feeling, check your pants leg because you might have just . . .

There is another reason guys leave school early and this one you won’t find anywhere but right here.  My firm belief is that the real reason people go to college is not to get an education.  The real reason is:

“These kids go to college to improve their station in life, and with what the NBA is paying - even if their careers are short-lived - it is a considerable improvement of their station in life.”

In other Halls of Fame, in order for a coach to be inducted, I believe a coach needs to have been retired for a period of time.  Yet in college hoops, not only is there no mandatory waiting period, they seem to find it necessary to induct active coaches.  I’ve never understood why there is such a hurry to anoint coaches with such a distinction so early.  Each of the leaders who are being selected will be certainly be chosen when their careers have come to a close.  Unless the electors worry a coach is going to die “on the bench” as so many coaches claim they’re going to do because of their love of the profession or, in some instances, because (admittedly) coaching is all they know how to do.

With all the scandals we’ve been made privy to, a wiser choice would seem to be to wait so as not to remove someone who does something illegal, unethical or worse while he or she is still an active coaching member.  By no means is this blog aimed at Rick Pitino who, coincidentally, was inducted in the 2013 class.  Both Jim Boeheim and Jim Calhoun were inducted while they were active coaches (Boeheim still is - and nearly tacked on another national championship to his lengthy resume).

My point is, why take away a spot on the ballot from an “old-timer” (for lack of a better term) or detract from the retired coach who’s entering?  For the older coach it’s a chance to reminisce some and thank others who also may be later on in years.  Right now, Pitino has to try not to forget his past teams while, naturally, the guys who just gave Louisville another banner are those who are freshest on his mind.  Besides, of his recent honors, wouldn’t it stand to reason that winning a national championship (or even a Final Four appearance had the Cards not won it), having a horse qualify to run in the Kentucky Derby and getting selected in the Hall of Fame have to rank 1,2,3 - in that order?  For someone to say no, they must really love horses.

Obviously, Rick Pitino (and Jim Boeheim and Jim Calhoun) would have been voted into the Hall following their retirement.  Maybe even at a time they’d appreciate it more or at a time the spotlight had gone away for a while, so having it return would have made it a sweeter tribute.  If there was anything any coach could do in between retirement and getting selected that would preclude him or her from induction, it would have to be some heinous crime.  The way things are run now, the title would have to be vacated, bringing additional shame on the coach and the sport.

There should be a mandatory 3-5 year waiting period for coaches to get elected in the Hall of Fame (of course with exceptions for catastrophies, e.g. Jim Valvano).  The Hall needs to show some of what coaches continually preach:

“Patience!”

Yesterday’s blog never happened due to “an intermittent power issue last night which interrupted service” - whatever all that means.  I just know that every time I started, I couldn’t get whatever or wherever it was I needed to blog.  And that’s about as technical an explanation as you’ll get from me (because that’s as technical a reason as I know).

Regarding the question of whether John Beilein should have played Trey Burke after getting two fouls in the first half of the national championship, allow me to tell a story of a similar situation (hey, it’s what I do best).  We (Fresno State) were in the NCAA tournament as a #9 seed that had beaten #8 Cal a couple nights before.  Now we were going up against #1 Michigan State who was very talented at every position and had a huge frontline.

Melvin Ely, a 6-10 center, was our best player.  Sure enough, he picked up his second foul early (like within first five minutes of the game.  Tark left him in.  Big Mel then picked up foul #3.  Tark still stayed with him.

We wound up losing.  In the press conference Tark was asked about it and gave two answers.  The long answer was that he felt for us to win, Melvin had to have a big game, meaning score and rebound big, and get their plethora of big men in foul trouble.  If Melvin didn’t, there was no fooling anybody - we had no shot.  Tark said it wasn’t really that great of a risk because while he hoped Melvin wouldn’t have picked up that third one, there was no way we were going to win anyway.

Some (non-coaches) will say Tark didn’t show enough confidence in his team, that “stranger things have happened.”  And they’re entitled to their opinion.  Maybe they can even cite an example of such an instance in which a team playing without their star - and winning - against a taller, stronger, quicker, more talented squad. Usually, though, in that scenario, if you stay long enough following the game, you get to see the credits roll.

The move he made hadn’t surprised me because in previous years I’d heard him discuss what his philosophy (not necessarily the right philosophy) was about protecting great players who got into foul trouble:

“He’s not doing us any good sitting next to me.”

If you were to ask the media what percentage of the questions they ask are fair, they undoubtedly would say 100%.  Unless they’d say 110%.  That logic is based on their feeling that they not only can, but are mandated to ask any and all questions based on their belief that the public has a right to know.  How many media people would like to have the tables turned on them is unknown but we can rest assured that it would be considerably less.  Like 100%.  If not 110%.

Take last night’s scenario.  The guy’s team just lost a game.  He feels bad.  And this wasn’t just a big non-conference game, nor was it a tough contest against a conference foe, a conference tournament fray or even an early NCAA tourney defeat.  The loss was for the opportunity to play for the national championship, the ultimate in a coach’s life.  His team wasn’t blown out, which would have given him a few minutes to realize it was all over and maybe collect his thoughts.  No, it went down until the final seconds and now . . .

He has to give his final post game speech for the season to his team which is naturally quite sentimental.  If he’s like any other coach I’ve ever known (head or assistant), he’s gone up to the squad’s seniors, one at a time, and told each one how much he appreciated their effort for the past year (or two, three, four or five).  Keep in mind the pair will be ending the relationship they’ve known for however many years.  If the coach recruited that player, the finality of the situation can be overwhelming emotionally.

Finally, his school’s media relations person tells him it’s time he must, according to NCAA tournament rules, go the press room.  The head coach is certainly upset but he harbors no ill will because he 1) understands tournament procedure and 2) implicitly trusts his media person, having “gone through the wars” with him.

The media knows all of this.  While the majority are professionals, there are inevitably one or two (or maybe more, depending, quite frankly, on the coach) who are champing at the bit to ask a question (or questions) to the person who they feel disrespected them.  Maybe a member of the media doesn’t particularly like a coach because of something he said or did to a friend or colleague.  In any case, there always seems to be someone - more so if the coach is controversial - who will see if they can say something to set the coach off, to get under the his skin.

As far as asking Boeheim if he’d return for next season, was it really necessary?  Or was it asked in an attempt to provoke the coach?  Why would his answer even matter?  Would it be binding?  Or would it give that reporter a chance to get another dig in at Boeheim if he changed his mind at a later date?  Besides, how important is it?  Syracuse already has a coach-in-waiting in Mike Hopkins so it couldn’t be to run the rumor mill about which coaches will be his successor?  Obviously, my take on the situation was that the question was more irritating than unfair.

I believe it was a big league manager who once said:

“When I think someone has a hidden agenda, I never give an answer with anything that could possibly come back to haunt me.”

The hottest sports story, including the Final Four, has got to be the total mess that took place at Rutgers and the ensuing domino effect of lost jobs and misery it’s caused.  Maybe the hottest news story as well.  Until it blows over and is replaced by something else that makes us breathe a sigh of relief while saying, “Well, there’s somebody whose life is in worse shape than mine.”

There was nothing good for Rutgers that came out of this situation - except for the hundreds of coaches who are bombarding the university with their resumes for the head and assistant coaching positions.  Their problem, however, is they don’t know exactly where they should send them.  The basketball office?  Athletics director?  President’s office?  On a more somber note, I, along with every coach I’ve seen interviewed, agree none of us have ever seen anything like that.  As loyal readers will know, I spent 30 years in Division I coaching, at nine institutions, going back to 1972.  Although one of those staffs in particular held daily practices that today would probably be considered child abuse, it was nothing at all like RU.

However, what terrified me nearly as much as the videos was what I heard Christine Brennan of USA Today say.  I was completely shocked and scrambled for a pen to write it down.  While I couldn’t remember it verbatim, it was something to the effect of - what a case like this says about college athletics is that it takes the media to police them.  After hearing that, I had a question for the sanctimonious Ms. Brennan.

Are you serious?

First of all, the person you most vilified (after Mike Rice), is Rutgers athletics director Tim Pernetti - who used to be a TV guy.  Had he stayed in the media world, he might be one of your guys policing college athletics.  Wow, how ironic would that be?  The person who watched the video of Mike Rice at Rutgers’ practices and decided not to fire him (which, correctly, offended you and the entire nation) . . . would be a watchdog.  Woof.  I don’t think so.

Since there are a couple, some, many, most, the overwhelming majority of people in this country who don’t, uh, what’s the right word here, oh, yeah, . . . trust the media, what exactly is the vetting process going to be like?  Can I be on the committee?  My memory recalls there have been media members who, how should I put it, have done wrong.  I think plagiarism (whether committed at the New York Times or lesser papers) is still against the law, isn’t it?  How would such people eliminated from your “policing” program?

Yesterday happened to be my annual check up with my optometrist.  After carefully watching and reading all the reports, I asked him if he could do anything to improve my hindsight.  One person I truly admired was the late Haywood Harris who served for five decades at the University of Tennessee as its SID (Sports Information Director, now referred to as Director of Athletic Media Relations).  Haywood was as intelligent and respected as anyone in the state.  He was inducted into four different Halls of Fame.  One day, he heard a young Knoxville sportswriter proudly claim that the media was “the watchdog of society.”  Haywood looked at the visitor and said:

“I’m a member of society.  I don’t remember ever requesting a watchdog.”

P.S. Here’s another question to ponder: Do you think these tapes would have been made public had Rutgers retained Eric Murdock?

Heading into their match up with Michigan, Billy Donovan, a coach who’s noted for details or, as we’ve learned during the media time out, logistics, needed to come up with a game plan for his Florida team.  One strategy would be to pressure the Wolverines and try to force as many turnovers as they could so the Gators would have numerous opportunities to score in the open court.  That had been their usual plan throughout the season.  Another method would be to make it a half court game so that the Gators could take advantage of their superior size and pound it inside because UM usually played with four guards and only one big man.

Donovan chose the one that exploited the inside mismatch.  On paper it was an excellent philosophy - except for the fact that his inside guys weren’t as noted for their back-to-the-basket skills as much as they were for facing up and offensive rebounding.  I wonder how much time Billy himself worked with those inside guys, explaining how vital it was they scored (as much as I’d like to think players listen to an assistant - having been one for 30 years - I fully understand their antennae tune in more sharply when the head man speaks).  Not pressing the action defensively as much as they could have meant the greater majority of their point production had to come from the “bigs.”

It might have been a moot point because had his team extended its defense to attempt to create turnovers against Michigan, the Wolverines’ guards might have broken the pressure.  Then any of their three point shooters (of which they have four on the floor during most possessions) would have been knocking down shots - scoring in threes.

Basically, there are two philosophies in forming a game plan: 1) if we go to our strength(s), will that be good enough for us to win or 2) would it better to attack their weaknesses?  Naturally, there are others but for the most they’re derivatives of the two above.  Unfortunately, the Gators looked much more reactive on defense and, while they were getting the ball inside, their bigs weren’t scoring, mainly because they’re not true back-to-the-basket players.  Before you know it, they were down a couple.  Touchdowns.  It was 13-0 and it only got worse.  UF attempted to rally but every mistake was magnified, e.g. fouling a three point shooter at the end of the half which thwarted the minor momentum they’d built.

Billy Donovan has currently been to three consecutive Elite Eights.  Florida fans might be disappointed they haven’t gone farther.  Well, Gator Nation, Ben Howland is available.  Oh yeah, he committed the same crime at UCLA (although his were Final Four “failures.”  For now, the Florida faithful can take solace in the fact they seem to be stuck with Billy the Kid - the same guy they cheered when he changed his mind and reneged on the offer he’d accepted from the Orlando Magic.

When a game between relative equals starts out like the UF-UM game did yesterday, it tends to balance out after a while or, as George Raveling used to say:

“The game will return to reality.”

Although I enjoy listening to audio books when I drive, during March Madness it’s all sports talk, all the time.  (Besides, my James Patterson novel ended on my way to LA).  Some of what’s said is delivered by coaches whose teams are in the tournament and, while what they say is usually nothing more than coach-speak, it’s still interesting to hear from the guys whose team was selected, especially if you get a first-timer.  Just as entertaining is the coach whose team got “snubbed.”  Their comments can also be enlightening - as long as you can get beyond the bitching.  Other contributors to the shows are “experts,” e.g. former players, writers or guys who put an extraordinary amount of time into understanding and studying the NCAA tournament - like Joe Lunardi, ESPN’s expert bracketologist.

As I was returning from my sojourn to watch the Clippers and hang out with friends (see yesterday’s blog), the radio was tuned to Sirius channel #86 - Mad Dog sports.  Adam Schein, host of the Schein on Sports, was ranting about his (apparently brilliant yet incredibly foolish) pick of New Mexico making it all the way to the Final Four.  Schein said he’d seen New Mexico play so many times and even did additional film study on the Lobos.  His resume says he graduated from Syracuse with a degree in Broadcast Journalism.  Because he went to a university that produces athletes in the field of basketball and non-athletes who go into sports media, I’m curious to know what extensive film study exactly means.  An extra bonus was that he had mentioned to his readers that Harvard’s coach, Tommy Amaker, “couldn’t coach his way out of a wet paper bag.”  (I always wondered not how, but exactly when, such an opportunity would arise).  His remark was that he gave his listeners New Mexico for all the right reasons (what happened, Adam, did somebody contact you about losing money?), yet he did admit, “I was absolutely dead wrong.”  Then he proceeded to blast Steve Alford for such a poor coaching job.

Mainly because he was embarrassed that the bracket he thought was going to shock (and defeat) his co-workers with such a ballsy pick was now blown up, he did what most non-competitive people do.  He blamed other things and people for his own shortcomings - in as cutting and obnoxious a method as a slick journalist would do.  Referencing the plethora of three-pointers that Harvard, the Lobos’ opponent, made, Schein shouted, “Hey, Steve, did it ever occur to you to guard the three-point line?”  I’ve often heard media guys use that phrase and wonder what, exactly, they would say to a team in regards to performing that task.  “Or maybe change defenses?” was another of his witty, sarcastic remarks directed at the New Mexico coach - like they should have been in the magical defense that doesn’t allow three point attempts to go in.

He continued to complain that none of the clutch guys for the Lobos during the season showed up and how atrocious the free throw shooting was.  Apparently, Alford was negligent in not having a contingency plan ready in case the guys he had depended on all year had off nights and the team couldn’t knock down a free throw - so that nothing could stand in the way of Adam Schein boasting about his clutch selection (like the selection should have been reason enough for the victory).  Then, he brought out mistake #1 that talk show hosts love to use when someone commits such an unpardonable sin.  “Alford was supposed to be on with us earlier week but he didn’t show.”  As if . . .

Schein was also incensed by Alford’s comments at the post game press conference in which Steve made the statement that his guys didn’t seem to be focused.  One of the things coaches dislike most are distractions.  At NCAA tournament time, there are so many additional media requests - leading to more distractions, including some members who ask questions like, “Looking beyond the Harvard game (in other words, we all know you’ll crush them, they’re just an Ivy League school), do you think you can beat Arizona?”  “Didn’t seem to be focused?!?  How the hell can they not have been focused?” Schein blasted.  “It’s the NCAA tournament!”

Possibly due to the fact that the show is multiples hours long, Schein then became vicious, saying Alford’s coaching was “atrocious,” “pathetic” and “repulsive.”  He then made the remark, “Bag it, loser!”  Schein’s over-the-top diatribe made me wonder (since this show was the first time I’d even heard his name) if he ever had a bad show.  Maybe lost focus, maybe felt he couldn’t quite put on the performance he had displayed so many, many times before.  Since no one is playing defense on him, i.e. not attempting to screw him up, had he ever had a bad night?

His show, I believe, was a five-hour ordeal - and, no, I didn’t listen to it in its entirety.  Before one of the breaks, he made the statement, “Well, that’s three phenomenal hours in the book.”  He would occasionally give props to a listener for a good point he hadn’t thought of, or some such comment, and I’d think of Golda Meir’s line:

“Don’t be so humble.  You’re not that great.”

The ESPN guys each were to ask NCAA basketball committee head Mike Bobinski one question.  When they got around to Greg Anthony, he asked why #5 seed UNLV was playing #12 Cal 1) when the committee didn’t have teams play each other who’d played during the regular season and 2) why the game was being played in San Jose, a virtual home game for the Golden Bears.  Coincidence?  Anthony’s a proud graduate of UNLV and was simply looking out for his home boys.  Take a listen to every other TV commentator.

Seth Greenberg, not surprisingly, empathized with any bubble team that played in a “big” conference, had a huge win but bad losses and was left out of the Dance, himself having been shut out of an at-large bid for several years - including one year in which his Virginia Tech squad beat Duke, at the time the #1 team in the country.  In a TV interview after the game he was assured by none other than Dick Vitale that you won’t have to sweat a bid this year, baby, you’ll be dancing (or something like that).  The Hokies, however, followed up that monumental win by losing to Boston College at home by 15, then again at Clemson to finish the regular season.  That year, as there usually are, there were attractive “mid” major clubs and one (or more) of them was selected over the Hokies.  Can’t say as I blame him for being snubbed as going to the NIT gets old for your fans.

If you didn’t know Jay Bilas attended Duke, you’d probably be able to figure it out when you hear him explain which teams should be in and which should be out.  Maybe he could disguise Duke but not his affection for schools from “power” conferences.  This year his beef was “In order to get selected by the committee, it’s not about who you beat; it’s about who you lose to.”  This stems from the “little” guy not playing as difficult a schedule as the big boys do.  Not non-conference but conference!  It’s almost like it’s the little guy’s fault they’re in a conference that doesn’t give them chances game after game to get “quality” wins (from others in the league).  One of these was Middle Tennessee State who went 28-5, but lost to Florida International in the semi-finals of the Sun Belt Conference (annually a one bid league).

One thing that’s for sure regarding Middle Tennessee.  Any other team from any power conference, had it switched places in the Sun Belt this season with MTSU, would have faced a tall order to accomplish what the Blue Raiders did this season.  Beyond the glossy record, their non-conference losses were at Florida, at Akron (in OT) and at Belmont (all NCAA tournament teams).  They lost in their fourth conference game of the season, at Arkansas State in OT, before stringing 17 straight league victories.  Then, the fateful setback to FIU.  True, they didn’t have some of the big-name wins a team like Virginia had.  They didn’t have the opportunity!  They also didn’t have the opportunity to lose games to the schools, including the bad ones.

It’s the same slam Gonzaga sued to receive and first, Don Monson, then, Mark Few, went out and insanely scheduled the big boys, often with no return game.  Now, teams like Gonzaga, Middle, Davidson, Butler, VCU are just like Duke, UNC and Kentucky as they get every team’s best shot, in front of packed arenas - which for other games the attendance doesn’t approach capacity.  It’s as hard, or harder, to play in front of a jammed, raucous band box of a gym holding a few thousand, than it is a 15,000 sold out arena.

There’s no way of comparing mid-majors and “middling” majors as bracketologist Joe Lunardi refers to schools who aren’t particularly good but get to play in power conferences.  In one way this year’s ESPN production was quite a turnaround for Bilas, who in 2011 absolutely lambasted the committee for awarding one of the final bids to VCU, not only on Selection Sunday, but in every show he was part of - until the Rams were still alive in the Sweet Sixteen.  Of course, that year, the Rams made a Cinderella trip to the Final Four, justifying not only their selection but legitimizing them as a program not to ever again be taken lightly.

Wally Szcerbiak, who starred at Miami (OH), ending his career as Mid-American Conference Player-of-the-Year, picked Gonzaga to the Final Four and there was joy in his voice as he’d been on the Zags’ bandwagon before it was fashionable.

Mateen Cleaves went away from that line of thought when he picked Louisville over Michigan State, admitting he wasn’t going with his heart when he made the choice.  Almost like he was apologizing to Spartan Nation for doing his job as a paid prognosticator.

It’s interesting listening to each guy explain his “side.”  This most difficult part of Jay Bilas is that he’s a former (or, for all we know, a current) lawyer.  What that means is that it’s difficult for others to speak with him because as a very close friend of mine once said:

“When two people have a discussion, it should be an exchange of information, that is, each person should learn something from the other.  With a lawyer, there has to be a winner and a loser.  And the lawyer has to win.”

March Madness has always meant upsets.  Fans love upsets - even when they blow up their brackets.  What usually happens is that the biggest upsets occur in the first or second round.  However, the past few years have seen “mid-majors” play in the Final Four!  This year we may not be so startled - for a different reason.

This season, unlike all the others, most people who follow the sport closely, feel the national champion may be one of as many as 15-20 teams.  In the past, parity be damned, the team cutting down the nets was almost always a top ten preseason squad.  The tournament was exciting, with upsets and near upsets, but the eventual champion always came from a so-called “power” conference, i.e. a school with basketball tradition.  Until 2010.  Almost.

Butler made a magical run and, all of a sudden, the nation was watching them play for all the marbles - against the standard bearer for the power schools - Duke.  Naturally, the game was held in the the Bulldogs hometown.  No one was sure what the actual split was as far as percentage of fans who were rooting for David vs. those who were pulling for the big fella but the game was scripted exactly as the tournament had been up to that point.

Everyone who said that, ‘Sure there are upsets along the way” (like, every year) “but one of the big money, perennial basketball studs with great bloodlines  always prevails in the end,” had to hold their collective breaths - as the Bulldogs’ Gordon Hayward took the final shot - a heave from deeeeeep.  If someone happened to be watching their first college basketball game ever that night, by the time Hayward let that shot go, they understood the significance of whether that that ball went through the hoop or not.  So, while the ball was in flight, it really seemed like time stood still - with everyone (im)patiently waiting for the outcome.  To make it even more suspenseful, the ball banked off the backboard and hit the rim - but, alas, missed - narrowly avoiding what would have rewritten the history books on college basketball and Final Fours.

This year we may not be afforded a major surprise because so many teams have a legitimate opportunity to call themselves #1.

But I think I’ll watch it anyway.