Jack’s Blog

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.

Ranking in controversy as to whether or not to foul at the end of a game with a three point lead is the decision of calling time out to set up a last shot - when the score’s tied or the offensive team is down one possession.  Last night’s final two NCAA tourney games gave everyone a few more chances to argue each point of view.

Kentucky had the ball against Ohio State with the score tied and Wildcat coach John Calipari chose not to call a TO.  Brandon Knight eschewed a high screen, drove to his right, pulled up and drained the go-ahead bucket.  It turned out to be the game winner when OSU coach Thad Matta chose the same route and allowed his guys to race the ball upcourt with no stoppage of play, except Dallas Lauderdale’s three-point attempt hit off the rim at the buzzer.  UK moved on to the Elite Eight while the Buckeyes’ season ended.

In the other game, played simultaneously, Florida State found itself down one with seven ticks to go against the latest Cinderella, #11 seed VCU (although FSU was only a #10 seed so it was more like Cinderella vs. David), and the Seminoles’ head man, Leonard Hamilton, also decided against stopping action.  His guard, Derwin Kitchen, drove the right baseline and appeared to be going up for a five-footer but chose to pass.  The ensuing shot at the buzzer was blocked and the Rams escaped.

Those in favor of calling time out contend that the coach should be the ultimate decision-maker.  After all, he’s the one getting paid big bucks to orchestrate the game and that includes diagramming last second - winning - plays.  On the flip side, there’s the argument that his counterpart is in charge of setting up a defense to stop game-winners.  A coach would need a rather large ego (no shortage of those in the coaching ranks) to believe what’s in his bag of tricks trumps the guy down the sideline.

When asked why he didn’t go with the TO, Hamilton made his case in a very convincing manner.  “We go over these situations every day in practice.  Derwin had a five-footer.  For whatever reason, he passed it up.  I’m not sure I could have drawn up a play that would have gotten us a better shot than a five-footer.”

If you want to know which theory is better, here’s the answer:

“A good coaching move is one that works.”

On Selection Sunday, all most people knew about Shaka Smart was that he was the head coach of perhaps the most undeserving team to be given an at-large berth in the NCAA Tournament.  Now, he’s being hailed as the “#1 guy on the list of every AD who has a coaching opening.”

How did his stock rise so high, so quickly?  His conference’s fourth-seeded team had to beat Drexel in the quarterfinals of the CAA tournament on a buzzer-beater, then upset George Mason in the semis before losing to ODU in the finals just so they could pray to have an outside chance to gain entry into the Big Dance.  Then they did so, possibly because the committee didn’t want 32 of the 37 at-large bids to go to BCS schools.

However, they’ve made the most of the opportunity they were afforded.  Coming off a College Basketball Invitational Championship last year (Smart’s first at the school), they made prophets out of this year’s committee members by not only beating USC, Georgetown and Purdue in their three tourney tilts, but dominating each of them.

For his part, Smart has shown to be the leader of a very disciplined, highly effective offense and defense with a group of guys who compete hard and play very well together.  Why his star has shown so brightly is, just as his team has, he’s taken advantage of the opportunity he earned.  Guys who were criticizing his club’s choice as a tourney entrant, are now singing his praises - to the tune of “the next coach at NC State” or “the next coach at Tennessee.”  Shaka Smart has done what Orison Swett Marden exclaimed:

“Don’t wait for extraordinary opportunities.  Seize common occasions and make them great.  Weak men wait for opportunities; strong men make them.”

More on the NCAA Selection Committee’s decision to include UAB & VCU: Do yesterday’s results mean that UAB didn’t belong in the field and VCU did?  That’s not the point.

ESPN’s Jay Bilas mentioned shortly after the committee announced their field of 68 that whether or not either of the two actually won a game meant nothing.  Any of the at-large teams are capable of winning a game - or even two - in the tourney.  The question was about the decision making that went on behind the closed doors.

Remember when the tournament was originally expanded to 68 teams?  One criticism was that the additional three spots would simply go to the sixth or seventh best teams from the power (BCS) conferences.  Dissenters to that theory said at the time that the extra spots were just as likely to go to the “mid-majors.”

One reason March Madness has become so popular is the David vs. Goliath syndrome.  Most people love to root for the underdog, the little guy.  With three more teams in the tourney, there might be even more teams that would capture the heart of the fans, thus making for more compelling stories.

Flash forward (now back) to Selection Sunday.  Committee chair Gene Smith said that, although Colorado and Virginia Tech were good ball clubs, the reason they didn’t make the tournament field was because they “just didn’t get enough votes.”  Had the interviewers, or the rest of us, realized at that time that had those two gotten in instead of UAB and VCU, it would have meant that, of the 37 at-large slots, 32 would have been awarded to teams in BCS conferences, it would have been a pertinent - and very uncomfortable - question to have posed to Smith.

As I stated in my blog on Monday, Smith did a highly transparent job of double-talking during the post-selection process interviews, and I’m certain he would have dodged that question as well, but it still would have been interesting to hear him try to wiggle his way out of a question that direct.

Many people, including your truly, have been harsh regarding Gene Smith’s responses (even though he was speaking on behalf of the entire committee), so to give him the benefit of the doubt, we need only to remember H.L. Mencken’s line:

“It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.” 

Every year there’s whining and screaming and shock when the brackets for March Madness are announced.  Yesterday’s blog was critical, not in which teams were in and which were excluded, but in the lack of substance committee chair Gene Smith gave to the viewing public when asked to explain the committee’s decisions.  Meanwhile, the talking heads (radio, TV and print) take it one (or more) steps further, claiming bad decisions (which may be true), favoritism (human nature) and the good ol’ boys network (really?) are among the faults of the committee.

Yet, if you listen closely, there are always more bubble teams that the critics think got screwed than there are ball clubs that were included, but shouldn’t have been.  This year, the teams that surprised people with their selection were VCU, UAB and Clemson - a record, as usually the complaints just about the teams that didn’t get in.

When the forehead slapping and shouting about those three died down, we heard about the deserving schools that should have been in the field, e.g. Virginia Tech, Colorado, St. Mary’s, Boston College, Missouri State, UTEP, Washington State and everybody’s favorite: Harvard.  For every team that should have made the field because of “big wins,” there were reasons to keep them out, most noticeably Colorado whose non-conference strength of schedule was 325.  There are only 341 teams in Division I!  Heck, there might be some D-II schools with a better SOS.  However, the Buffs did beat Texas and Missouri, plus Kansas State three times.  Which illustrates how difficult the job is.

I’ve mentioned the wisdom of my late, brilliant mentor, John Savage, on many occasions.  His line that came to mind when I heard all the criticism was:

“Did you ever notice that people who never make mistakes always seem to know am awful lot of people who do?”

Gene Smith is this year’s chair of the NCAA Selection Committee and thus, is the target of frustration for all the people who wouldn’t want the job but are more than happy to criticize what Smith and his group labored over for who-knows-how-long.   Of course, it’s infinitely easier to tear down the work of others than to tackle the actual task yourself.  Don’t be fooled for a minute that if Jay Bilas or Dick Vitale, or . . . anyone attempted the charge of selecting the 37 at-large teams and seeding the 68 that make up the NCAA Tournament that people would be shouting, “Perfect!  They nailed it!”

Each year, the committee chair is forced to face the public right after the announcements, and explain the inevitable controversy that arises from the eventual choices.  Although Smith knew he had to endure this uncomfortable situation, another set of circumstances would trump his misery.  He had absolutely no clue when he accepted the lead role that, of all years, he’d have to discuss - and support - his heretofore clean-cut football coach, Jim Tressel, against charges of committing NCAA violations and lying to the governing body about his role in the case.

Smith can’t be blamed for having his defenses up and being hesitant to anything that could come back and bite him.  As far as timing, him serving as this year’s chair has to be the all-time negative coincidence.  However, as the overused term goes, “It is what it is” and college basketball fans all over the nation want to hear the answers to the same questions that’s posed to the committee every year at this time: “Why?”

First, (OSU alum) Clark Kellogg and Jim Nantz of CBS, then George Smith of ESPN interviewed the Ohio State AD regarding decisions made by the committee he headed and, in each case, he told the viewers . . . nothing!  Every question was answered with a generic response, e.g. “there are so many good teams, we just didn’t have enough slots” and “we spent so much time on the top two lines” (#1 and 2 seeds) “but we spent a lot of time on the final teams as well.”

Regardless of his personal situation and the difficulty of the queries, the viewing public deserved more specific information.  In short:

“The only way he could have said less is if he’d talked longer.”

Joe Lunardi is ESPN’s number one (and, I would think, only) “bracketologist.”  While some folks might wonder how we got along all the years before Joe, others ponder the question, “If the NCAA Selection Committee picks the tournament teams on the final Sunday of the regular season, what’s the need for a bracketologist at all?”

The country is so ensconced in hoop hysteria - especially college basketball because it seems everybody either went to a school involved or passionately roots for one - discussing or debating which teams get into the Big Dance and which teams don’t, is nearly as much fun as watching the games themselves.  College football has spring ball; college basketball has “bubble teams” and seedings.

Before and after games, at halftime and, occasionally even during the contests, announcers and color guys, studio hosts and analysts, and even coaches can be heard giving their expert opinions on which club has played themselves in - or out - caught a break (good, if a team thought to be in stumbled or bad, if an underdog beat a “lock”), or is on the bubble.

Some of these guys are retired coaches or former players who’ve actually experienced the feelings, some are guys who never strapped one on but devote their life’s work to “being in the know” and others are in between - coached or played some in their day, maybe at the D-I level, maybe elsewhere - but now are career sports journalists.

I find listening to each to be extremely entertaining which, undoubtedly, is why so much air time and newspaper space is devoted to something which will be rendered moot once the Selection Committee reveals its decisions.

Case in point: One guy says North Carolina, if it beats Duke (today) - another example of something that won’t matter 18 hours after the words leave the prognosticator’s mouth - it deserves a #1 seed.  Their strength of schedule alone dictates they earned the top spot.  Wait just a minute, retorts his not-so-humble counterpart, usually prior to the first speaker finishing his thought, Carolina has only two wins against Top 20 teams.  Notre Dame, with 11 such victories, should get the #1 seed.

Whoa!  How can a team get a #1 when they didn’t even win their league or the conference tournament?  In fact, they didn’t even make it to the final game of the tourney.  Carolina will have won 20 of their last 22 games.  Hold on, counters “anti,” UNC was awful early in the season.  Sure, they played a great schedule but they didn’t win those games, uh, except for Kentucky.

Banter is heard on nearly every show, radio or TV, and in many newspaper columns and Internet posts.  This team has faltered down the stretch but had some very big wins early.  This is where the famous “body of work” argument enters the discussion.  Someone who’s not so enthralled with the team that’s mentioned might then say, “Yeah, but that win was a long time ago,” meaning it must be the recent body of work holds greater importance.

The debates are fun but their only real value is to the guy who’s sitting at the end of the bar and wants to sound like he knows something the other patrons don’t.  We all realize that all that matters is what Joe Lunardi, er, the Selection Committee ultimately decide.

The best reason to debate who’s “going dancing” is found in the old line:

“If two of us agree on everything, one of us isn’t necessary.”

Each year, the members of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Selection Committee spend countless hours pouring over data in an attempt to pick the (now 68) most deserving teams that will compete in the most exciting tournament in the country.  This year, the committee’s task might be easy in that there have been fewer “mid-major” teams that have “made a statement” in non-league play, and those who did produce some signature wins have since fallen in conference play.  Those teams have seemingly sealed their fate and, consequently, will be forced to win their conference tournament to receive the automatic bid.  An example of such a mid-major that’s (already) playing its way “on the bubble” is Central Florida who broke quickly from the gate winning its first 14 games, but has since lost to Houston and Southern Miss, the latter by 17 points.  This, after beating Florida and Miami (a victory that will its luster unless the ‘Canes make a positive showing in ACC play).  UCF’s only remaining “influential” games are against Memphis.

Therefore, it appears the overwhelming majority of the at-large bids will be awarded to the major conferences.  (Note: The Mountain West Conference usually receives multiple bids and should be considered as a major conference).  So far this season (in the top leagues), there have been near upsets - or games that will count as “good losses.”  Saturday’s results alone produced near misses for Nebraska (at Kansas), Marquette (at Louisville), Northwestern (at Michigan State) and Penn State (at Ohio State).

The other factor in the big guys’ favor is the opportunity to actually win some of these contests - even though many of the “power victims” are going through average years.  Cal over Washington State (a solid, but beatable, team), Minnesota beating Purdue (a fine ball club but weakened by the loss of Robbie Hummel), Stanford defeating Washington (the favorite in the Pac-10 but underachieving so far) and Penn State downing Illinois (a good team but one that has shown it can be beaten by a lesser foe, e.g. UI-C) are all such examples.

Florida State’s win over Duke pretty much ensures the ‘Noles a bid, barring a complete collapse throughout the remainder of the season - one that’s unlikely because the ACC, as much of the rest of college basketball, seems to going through a down year.  This is better known as parity.  There are certain to be more victories like FSU’s, but all of them will probably be in the top leagues.

So for those who root for the underdog, this year might be a letdown.  If so, borrow the sentiment expressed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (check yesterday’s blog for the best MLK story ever):

“We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.”