OJ Mayo, AAU and Today's Game

In the McDonald's All-American Game this week, the general public met OJ Mayo, prodigious talent and personification of the current USA Development system. I have written about Mayo before, as an entity, not an individual: I think the aura around Mayo has grown to LeBron or Telfair-like proportions, and judging the teenager is somewhat unfair, as he is so much more and deals with such different circumastances than a normal high school kid. So, I do not want to bash an individual while criticizing a system. However, across the Internet, it appears to be open-season for Mayo-bashing.

It started before the burger game when Wilbon criticized Mayo again, this time because Mayo had the guts to say he wanted to be one of the greatest players ever. Please. In comparison to James' proclamation that he wants to be a billion-dollar man, Mayo's goals are much more comforting as a basketball fan. While James is ubiquitous now, and his buddy Wade (whose handlers aim to make Team Wade one of the top 10 brands in the world) is gaining on him, I'm all for a kid who wants to be a great player, not a brand.

After the burger game, anonymous posters on Internet message boards could not blast Mayo's efforts quick enough. Before the game ended, the criticism ran rampant. And, the world's most famous blogger (Bill Simmons) could not resist using Mayo to make his argument against the current US Basketball system:

Again, it's not a black/white thing as much as a philosophical thing -- we glorify scoring and dunking and allowed an infrastructure in which AAU games and summer camps matter more than high school games. Winning and losing doesn't matter nearly as much as how you did and how you looked...Why? Because they've been playing 100-plus games every year since they were 14 years old. Because the final score never really mattered for most of those games. Because they were taught at an early age that it's all about how YOU looked, not how your team looked. To be fair, some guys break out of that mind-set or never get corrupted in the first place. At the same time, it's definitely a mind-set. And it's depressing.

This is a great indictment of the system and one which is close to the argument which sparked the beginning chapters of Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development.

These comments echo the thoughts expressed in my four-part rant on sneaker wars and youth basketball development:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

The problem, of course, is Simmons (and others) continue to depict the problem. Nobody addresses the solution, which is what prompted my web site and book, which hope to create a dialogue to move the US basketball environment closer to a solution. It's easy to identify the problems; it's more difficult to get people to think about improving the system, which is now so entrenched.

Big Media is Scarrred

This afternoon, I caught some Around the Horn and PTI while eating my lunch (Kornheiser and Wilbon were especially funny today in the opening segment). What caught my attention, more than any point any of the professional writers tried to make, was their fear of bloggers.

Woody Paige, who continually illustrates his utter lack of sports understanding on ATH, posted asign in the backround which said, "No, I don't want to read your blog."

On PTI, in response to a challenge from OJ Mayo to speak to him rather than reading Internet sites, Wilbon said he does not read Internet sites.

Are these guys scared? Do they fear the bloggers are taking over? Did ESPN's purchase of True Hoop put them all on notice (when does Henry get a spot on ATH)?

It appears the "real" media is going out of its way to discredit bloggers, while bloggers continue to gain more and more credibility.

As for PTI, if they did not look down on other sources of information, maybe they would not make mistakes when criticizing rules which have already been changed or forgetting about the entire West Coast.

As I wrote before:

Bloggers are unconvential. They are entertaining. They are talented. They are invested. They are not jaded or cynical and they do not hate sports or athletes. They care, oftentimes too much...

Unfortunately, the "real" media is jaded (Kornheiser regularly talks about his love for American Idol in comparison to the NBA) and often disinterested in sports. So, of course people read bloggers more and more and as long as "real" writers remain jaded and cynical and largely disinterested in the sports they cover, the passionate fans will gain more and more influence by supplying real writing, ifnormation and insight.

Hoops Addict Pod Cast

If you always wanted to hear what I sound like, Ryan McNeil of Hoops Addict interviewed me last week and just posted a Pod Cast on his site. Go here to hear me talk about my book, USA Basketball, coaching in Europe and more.

The Kings

At the Phoenix Suns vs. Sacramento Kings game today, I saw a new Kings' team. Admittedly I have not watched the Kings play recently, too much college basketball, but when did the Kings start running the weave and basically playing 1v1 basketball on almost every possession (with the occasional pick and roll thrown in)?

Last time I went to a Kings' game, the restless fans screamed at the Kings to run more plays. Today, they screamed at the Kings' players to pass the ball more. In the Bee today, readers lamented the loss of an identity with the team. The Kings' management, fans and media are so unrealistic.

First, the lack of identity is not Musselman's fault. Look at the pieces: they don't fit (and the injuries don't help either). The lack of identity started when Vlade retired, Webber was traded and Peja was traded.

Second, the Kings' fans, media and management wanted a defensive team. The Kings had an aesthetically pleasing and succesful team, but the Maloofs (and the media) criticized the lack of defense (which was more perception than fact). So, now the Kings are moving toward a more rugged, defensive team and Kings fans yearn for the teams of the past.

The weave is an interesting approach for Mussleman, especially in light of the way the Kings used to play. When Salmons, Martin and Garcia are in the game, it's not a bad approach, as each has quickness and size. Plus, the Kings do not really have any effective big men right now, as Corliss Williamson is the Kings best post: Kenny Thomas and Brad Miller are injured and Shareef Abdur-Rahim plays like his knees are bothering him.

The problem with the weave is a lack of movement; it is strictly a 1v1 offense with the player on top trying to break down his defender. If Mussleman really wants to run a weave offense, I'd like to suggest my book, Blitz Basketball, as the basic offense is basically a weave; it's similar to the offense University of Memphis runs.

As for Mussleman, everyone wants to run him out of town. Is that fair? The Kings are within four games of the play-offs and have had its nucleus (Brad Miller, Ron Artest and Mike Bibby) absent for much of the season with injuries, arrests, etc. Has he been great? No. But, I maintain that Sacramento fans, media and management grossly overrated the talent on the roster: its not one of the eight most talented rosters in the Western Conference. Are the Kings better than the Clippers? Nuggets? Which roster would you rather have? The Timberwolves? The Hornets? The Warriors? Seriously, the Kings are built around a tempermental point guard who cannot keep his man out of the paint and who started the season overweight; a tempermental small forward who thinks he should shoot 20+ times a game just because he is a great defender and who has been arrested twice this season; and a soft, outside shooting center who cannot defend a pick and roll who has suffered from plantar fasciitis this year? Only during the season do everyone learn that Kevin Martin is the Kings' best player. The Kings simply do not have a play-off roster, regardless of coach, yet the Kings management has gone completely unscathed in the media thus far.

What I learned during the Memphis/Ohio State Game

Chris Douglas-Roberts (who I really like) makes a behind-the-back move past Mike Conley Jr and Bill Rafferty exclaims "Onions!" or "lingerie" or some other exclamation and proclaimed the great handle of CDR. However, in the slow-motion highlight, CDR is staring directly at the ball as he received the behind-the-back dribble. Not exactly a flawless execution or exhibition of terrific handles. Of course, this is not the first time Rafferty's excitement outdid the actual move.

Later, Rafferty felt the Intentional foul call on CDR was "clear cut." It was anything but. CDR grabbed Oden's arms on he ground to prevent Oden from getting airborne and dunking. He did this also to prevent injury. There are dozens of more Intentional or flagrant fouls in every game. In fact, Greg Oden, in the Xavier game, was allowed to push an opponent out of bonds and did not receive an intentional foul, which would have ended the game. So, lesson learned is that its better to toss someone out of bounds than to hold them down in order to prevent injury. I suppose CDR should have waited for Oden to get airborne and then hit him as hard as possible.

Kobe Jealousy

I briefly watched the Jim Rome Show yesterday, something I almost never do, as he has never really struck me as an intelligent sports observer, but a loud, brach personality, a la Screamin' A. Smith.

Anyway, Rome and his panelists, two guys whose names I missed, discussed Kobe Bryant and his entrance into the MVP discussion after his latest flurry of fifty point games.

The two panelists (one black and one white) refused to put Kobe Bryant into the discussion with Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitski and LeBron James. And, though I'm not a huge Kobe Bryant fan, I have a problem with his dismissal.

First, what is an MVP? Everyone has their own conclusion. Most in the Steve Nash camp believe the NBA is a player who elevates the players around him. However, while I do like Nash, the Suns are a very talented team. He is certainly the engine that makes the offense go, but, if you out him on a team lacking athleticism and shooters, he would not be quite as valuable. Most in the Dirk Nowitski camp believe the MVP is simply the best player on the best team, which is a silly argument to me, especially when one culd argue Josh Howard, Jason Terry and Jerry Stackhouse are just as instrumental to the Mavericks' success (I've been one of Nowitski's biggest supporters since he was drafted). And, the LeBron James camp, one of the guy's on the show, suggests that James is the best player in the league who makes his teammates betetr.

If you took Nowitski off the Mavericks, Dallas makes the play-offs. If you took Nash off the Suns, Phoenix makes the play-offs. If you took Kobe off the Lakers, they would fall to th bottom of the Western Conference along with Memphis. If you took James off the Cavaliers, Cleveland may still have a chance to make the play-offs in the Leastern Conference because of the mediocrity of the conference as a whole (if you moved the Cavs to the West, with James, they probably would not make the play-offs because of the much tougher schedule in the Western Conference).

I think the argument that James makes his teammates better and Kobe does not is pure fable. Sure, James has exquisite court vision. However, Kobe is also a tenacious defender whose will to win spills over to the other players on the team. Is Kobe selfish? Probably. But, what great player isn't? Remember, Dwyane Wade criticized Nowitski for,in different words, not being selfish or intense enough.

Kobe Bryant is the most talented player in the NBA. The league, which has done everything possible to annoint LeBron James as its new Magic Johnson/Michael Jordan figure, doesn't want the general public to realize James isn't the best player, but Kobe is simply more talented. James may have more potential because he's bigger and has better vision and might even be more explosive, but Kobe has the tenacity and desire to be the best. On the other hand, James' goal is to be a billion dollar man.

And, now the most talented player in the League is doing things nobody has done in forty years whilein the thick of a play-off race, just as it appeared his team was going to fold and join the Durant derby. What more do you want out of an MVP candidate? A player cannot contol his teammates, his coach or injuries to his teammates. It's not Kobe's fault that Lamar Odom cannot stay healthy, Vlad likes to snowboard or Kwame Brown is less effective than Eric Dampier. So, it's not his fault his team is not a championship-caliber team: that's the General Manager's job.

However, if I had to game plan to stop one player in the NBA, the last player I would want to face is Kobe Bryant. On any given day, he can will his team to beat any other team in the NBA. Now, over the curse of a season, talent and injuries win out and the best teams rise. In a seven game series, it is hard to pull-off a major upset, though anyone can win in a one game situation. And, if faced with a one game situation, Kobe is the player I'd most want on my team and would least want to face. Dwyane Wade because of his propensity to get to the FT line, his quickness, his length and his ball handling would probably be #2 and Steve Nash because of his ability to make the right decision and punish the opposition with the pass, dribble or shot would be #3.

Since Wade has been out for so long, he's out of the running for MVP. So, my vote comes down to Kobe and Nash, and while I like Nash better, root for Nash and enjoy watching him player more, Kobe is the MVP choice because of everything he does to make an average team a play-off team in the tough Western Conference. I think those who refuse to give Kobe his just due are either jealous or dislike Kobe for other reasons beyond what he does every night on the court. And, the MVP just not be a popularity contest or judged by personal preferences; then its just a media version of American Idol.

Randolph Morris
The New York Knicks used the CBA loophole to sign Kentucky's Randolph Morris. While every publication made mention of this move, nobody has given it its just due. Everyone criticizes Isiah Thomas, as if he is clueless and completely incompetent. However, signing Morris is another astute move. Sure, his aversion to signing or drafting a PG is puzzling, especially given his success at the position, but his other moves are much better than expected, even the "terrible" Eddy Curry trade which was supposed to "cost" the Knicks Greg Oden.

Morris is a capable back-up center for Curry. If Thomas is able to rid himself of some of his early mistakes (Jerome James), he has a formidable, young front court (Curry, Frye, Morris and Lee). More importantly, Morris adds depth to a roster which gives Thomas another bargaining chip in a potential deal for Kevin Garnett. If Morris plays well, will Thomas be willing to deal Lee? If so, could the TWolves afford to pass up a trade including Frye, Lee and others? Or, Morris, Lee and others? While Jared Jeffries might be overrated, would the TWolves be better with KG and Foye or Foye, Lee, Morris and Jeffries?

More importantly, how were other teams unable to sign Morris? What's Memphis doing? If Morris turns out to be a player ($1.6 million is a very small risk for a 6'11 C), signing Morris could have freed the Grizzlies to draft Kevin Durant and pair Durant and Morris with Gasol on a pretty impressive frontline. Plus, the Grizz could promise a starting spot, not competition with Lee, Frye and Curry for playing time. What about resident genius Geoff Petrie? The Kings have no inside presence and even its minimal inside presence (Brad Miller) has plantar fascitiis which is a tough injury to bounce back from quickly. Heck, I know the Suns are close to the luxury cap, but Morris would have been an interesting investment as a back-up to Stoudamire in the future.

I like Thomas because he is unafraid to fail. He makes bold decisions. The GMs I dislike are the ones who make safe decisions which insure mediocrity. Thomas may fail, but, if he is correct, he'll resurrect a proud franchise and be a hero. Risk and reward. Every pundit says that they'd take Greg Oden becuse he is the safer pick; how is the safe pick going to look if Kevin Durant morphs into KG with three-point range and a handle?

Friday Night's NCAA Games

CBS is annoying. I hate the network. Billy "ACC" Packer is borderline worse than listening to Dookie Vitale.

All through the game, Packer criticized Roy Williams for sticking to his game plan. Then, when Carolina made its run, he jumped back on the Williams' bandwagon.

At the end of the game, he said the moving screen was an easy call and criticized Tom Floyd. Now, getting a T isn't the best decision, but he was not mad at the moving screen call (I think). I imagine he was upset about the non-call on Nick Young's three-point attempt on the previous possession. At one end, Tyler Hansborough knocks down an SC defender with no call (eventually a travel) and then Young gets flattened right in front of the Trojan bench with no call. Now, the CBS brain trust never replayed Young's shot, but, live, it looked like he was hit, though the camera was on the far side. But, it was certainly close enough to at least show one replay. But, no. And, Packer showed no depth of thought to think that maybe the T was not just about one call.

Instead, Clark Kellog kept trying to take Georgetown's victory and give it to Vanderbilt by insisting Jeff Green traveled. Now, in my opinion and the way I understand the rule, he traveled. However, the way it is called every game, he did not travel. Nobody argues for a traveling violation every time a player does a basic up-and-under post move; that's essentially the move Green used, except he used a reverse pivot, not a front pivot, a move I teach and call the "Scalabrine Move," as Brian Scalabrine (Celtics) uses the move in the post. If his move was a travel, by rule, then officials and coaches have a lot of work to do to clean up the game, as there are travels on almost every possession. But, traveling violations at every level are called so inconsistently that I don't what a travel is anymore.

In the Butler game, AJ Graves caught the ball, took one dribble into a jump stop, shot faked and stepped through wth one step. He was called for a travel. Then, Taurean Green, on the next possession, switched his pivot foot, but it was not called. Later, Green hit a pull-up three after catching the ball left-right and then taking his first step with his left foot, which should be a travel. So, it's a crap shoot. Officials are so lax with the traveling violations that players are now incredibly sloppy with their footwork. Or vice versa (players are so sloppy so refs are lax).

In the Butler game, the analyst criticized one of the Butler players for not holding his ground as Horford backed him down from the three-point line. However, in the first half, when a Butler defender did hold his ground, he was called for a blocking foul.

I just wish CBS could find analysts who were able to keep up with the action. In last night's UCLA game, Dick Enberg never figured out which player was Alfred Aboya and which was Ryan Wright and used their names interchangably, as if they were the same player. Every game, the announcers make mistakes on foul calls, timeouts, etc. It's frustrating watching the games when they have the whole court in front of them and they make mistakes. If they do not add information to the telecast, what's the point?

As for the teams, Carolina was not impressive at all. They have a great bench and depth of talented players, but I can't see any of their players in the NBA next year, though Lawson, Wright and Hansborough are thought of as top 18 picks. Wright is a taller version of Tyrus Thomas; he has no game outside six feet. He's incredibly gifted athletically, but he does not show a lot of technical skill. He has great potential because he is soooo long and soooo athletic, so his upside his huge and NBA guys love upside; but, how good is he really? How good does he want to be? Hansborough is even worse. Everytime I watch him play, I wonder about the hype. Sure, he works hard, but he was neutralized (outplayed) by an above average college post player. As for Lawson, nothing about this game suggested he is the first or second best PG in the country. I like Mike Conley, Jr. much better as a freshman and Acie Law IV and Darren Collison. And, he might not be as talented or even be a true PG, but I like Jamaal Tatum from the little I have seen of him; he may be the most underrated player in the country.

Watching Joakim Noah beat his chest and clap and do all the rah-rah things that make some people love him, I have to wonder how NBA players will react to him. I keep thinking of the scene when Kareem Abdul Jabaar hits a game winner in Magic's rookie season and Magic goes nuts, jumping in his arms and Kareem (legend has it) tells Magic to get off of him because they have eighty games left in the season. After watching Florida again, I maintain that Brewer and Horford are better pro prospects, though Noah's defense on the perimeter was very impressive, scary good actually. If he could shoot the ball, he has the athleticism to play the 3; but he lacks the offensive game. I still think he'll be more of a role player than a star and that he's better off going to a good team (Chicago, Phoenix) than a team looking for a savior (Memphis, Boston). Brewer is sloppy with the ball, but he has everything a player needs to be a dominant swingman, with his length, athleticism and shooting ability (though he'll be drafted lower because swingmen are easier to find than posts), and, I love Horford as an interior scorer and rebounder (perfect fit in Chicago, Atlanta or Sacramento).

Jeff Green showed again why I think he is a lottery pick. I don't care that he does not really have a position; neither does Shawn Marion. The kid has size and can play. He's athletic (though not freaky athletic like Wright), can shoot, pass, handle. Brewer has more upside, and I do like Brewer, but I really like Green, too. I didn't see any of Hibbert, but I still like Hibbert as a lottery pick too. He's a game changer like Greg Oden.

Just with these players alone, it's tough to put them in any kind of definitive order as draft prospects. In my mind, the psycholgical aspect will be critically important. Just as in 2003, an NBA team cannot afford to pass on the next Dwyane Wade for a Darko Milicic. NBA personnel must evaluate each player's desire and how much they crave greatness. And, from what I have heard about Noah, he is such an eclectic person, which makes him more interesting as a human being, but is not 100% focused on being the best basketball player in the world; however, Kevin Durant appears to be focused on greatness. This, imo, will be how teams decide which of these gifted players to choose first because the top teams will be leaving talent on the board and risk making the wrong the decision. In retrospect, Wade has the mental desire to be the best, seemingly even more than a Bosh or Anthony who are equally talented players. While Oden could be great, will he be the greatest? Does Wright want to be the best, or does Julian Wright? Will an NBA team take height and upside over the psycholgical traits of greatness?

Tubby Leaves Kentucky

Michigan, I tried to help. Now, Minnesota stole the show and hired Tubby Smith as its new coach. Michigan and Iowa (now that Steve Alford is leaving for New Mexico) have a lot of work to do to match the buzz Minnesota receives from this hiring.

What are the chances Michigan or Iowa lures a coach with a National Championship on his resume?

Even though Smith has not recruited particularly well the past couple season, Minnesota made itself a major player in the Big 10 with this hiring. Michigan and Iowa must make great hires to keep pace and remain relevant in the conference, as Indiana, Illinois, Michigan State and Ohio State appear entrenched as upper echelon programs in the conference, with Minnesota on the way.

Jamaal Tatum
I saw Southern Illinois play for the first time this season. I don't care what anyone says, Jamaal Tatum is a pro. He's not even listed on some pre-draft sites, and he might not be drafted, but he's going to make a roster. His game isn't perfect, but he's definitely a back-up PG in the NBA because of his quick hands and feet and ability to make tough shots. He may play a year or two in the NBDL to prove himself, but he will play in the NBA.

More PTI Mistakes

I'm watching PTI with Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon. They received an email complaining about Kevin Kruger playing for his dad at UNLV. They ranted about stupid NCAA rules, etc, etc.

And, they totally left out the fact that the rule which allowed Kruger to transfer to UNLV and be immediately eligible has since been rescinded.

The NCAA passed a rule which said a student who graduates from his university and has a year of eligibility remaining may transfer to another school and immediately eligible. In theory, it's a good rule, as an athlete not heading to a pro team can transfer to a university and pursue a meaningful Master's degree, rather than being stuck at is univerity which may or may not have the Graduate program he or she desires.

However, in practice, it allows Kruger to transfer and immediately elevate UNLV to a Sweet 16 team as its starting PG. So, the NCAA rescinded the rule.

Too bad PTI failed to get the memo...

Tournament Surprises

Surprise! No double-digit seeds left. No George Masons.

All year, pundits suggested this was the year or parity and another George Mason would make a similar run. Some pundits even suggested a four-seed or lower would win the championship.

I never bought it. I think there are six teams who have been head and shoulders above the rest all season (Kansas, Carolina, UCLA, A&M, Ohio State, Florida-once I watched Georgetown play, I added them to the list to make seven. But, I did not really watch them play until late in the season, so for most of the season, I only liked the first six). If the Final Four includes anyone else, I'll be shocked (though I wouldn't mind Memphis proving me wrong just because I like the way they play. However, they barely beat Gonzaga in the one tough game I watched them play and I did not think much of the Zags this year, so, consequently, I'm not sold on Memphis, though I'm rooting for them).

Last year, the favorites were flawed. UConn was a prohibitive favorite because of their NBA-lite roster, but they played with such apathy and disinterest that almost anyone had a chance to beat them. If an entire team checks out mentally before the season starts, it's tough to win in the tournament.

This year, the top teams play hard and play together. They are talented, athletic and filled with NBA talent. A draft comprised of only these seven teams would still make NBA teams happy: Greg Oden, Brendan Wright, Julian Wright, Joakim Noah, Al Horford, Corey Brewer, Roy Hibbert, Jeff Green, DaJuan Sumners, Patrick Ewing Jr, Acie Law IV, Darren Collison, Aaron Afflalo, Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Sharron Collins, Brandon Rush, Darrell Arthur, Tyler Hansborough, Ty Lawson, Michael Conley Jr., etc.

With excellent coaches, oodles of talent and aggressivenes, unselfishness, togetherness and tenacity, its tough for a mid-major or low seed to pull an upset. Even the lowest seed left is not to much of a surprise: UNLV won the Mountain West and has plenty of experienced players, while Wisconsin is missing a pivotal player in Brian Butch.

While the tournament lacks the cinderellas America loves, the Sweet 16 provides plenty of intriguing match-ups and lots of talent. Now that the appetizers are out of the way, the top teams (and its really hard to argue that these are not the top 16 teams, as Louisville, Washington State, Wisconsin and Texas maybhave a small argument, with Texas and Louisville with the best arguments because of their match-ups vs. their second round opponents) match up and battle. Can Tim Floyd's defensive game plan limit Carolina? Can Tennessee's press both Conley and the Buckeyes? Can Derrick Byars put Vandy on his back and shoot the Commodores past GTown? Is Memphis for real, or is Law that good? Will Pitt or UCLA break 40?

On another note:

Michigan needs a Head Coach. I have two names. Michigan needs to make a splash. They have been far too mediocre for far too long considering the talent in the state of Michigan, the general mediocrity of the Big 10 and the success of the football program. So, Michigan boosters, get some cash together and go after Larry Brown or Tubby Smith.

Larry Brown: I'm not a huge fan. However, he keeps saying how much he wants to teach. Well, hire him and give him some cash to hire a top assistant to do all his recruiting for him and see what he's got. He has to be popular in Michigan and recruiting hotbed Detroit after his World Championship. Why not?

Tubby Smith: Smith does not want to quit. Kentucky fans obviously want a new coach. So, Smith needs an out so he can leave before he is run out of town. Michigan is a perfect opportunity. After all, arguably his best player right now is from Detroit. Off the top of my head, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Joe Crawford, Malik Hairston and Tajuan Porter would have made a heckuva a Detroit-area back court for Michigan.

If not, wouldn't it be great to hire Tom Crean and see Izzo vs Crean in the mentor/pupil game twice a year, not to mention battling for all the in-state Flint and Detroit talent?

Tourney Officiating and Oden vs. Hibbert

Man, the NCAA officials had a tough day. I watched the end of the Ohio State vs. Xavier game when the officials lacked he guts to call an intentional foul on Greg Oden with under ten seconds to play.

Then, as I arrived at Arco Arena, I watched as an official completely blew the call at the end of the Maryland vs. Butler game, somehow calling a charge on DJ Strawberry even though he was not give the opportunity to land.

In the Vanderbilt vs. Washingston State game, the officiating was again terrible. I don't know what the Cougars did, but they had two poorly officiated tournament games. Several times, the officials ignored Vandy guards grabbing Low's jersey as he ran off screens. Not only is this a foul, it is technically an intentional foul.

The UCLA vs. Indiana game had one official who was intent on making the game about him. Not sure how DJ White made it through the game with only 1 foul, while UCLA's posts combined for 12+ fouls. There were some brutally bad calls in both directions.

As for the games, I still don't understand why Bennett did not play Ivory Clark more. He was the difference maker against Oral Roberts and made plays while he was in the game. However, it's tough to win when Weaver and Rochestie play their worst games in the same game.

As for the UCLA vs. Indiana game, it was hard to watch. Watching this game made me even more in favor of the International rules, especially in regards to timeouts. This game had no rhythm because the coaches used their timeouts and set plays to control the game. I favor players making plays rather than coaching strategy. Play four ten minute quarters and give each coach one timeout per quarter. Let the players decide the game and put the flow back into the game.

As for Greg Oden, I have said this before, but nothing he showed today convinced me he is significantly better than Stanford's Lopez or Georgetown's Roy Hibbert. Oden definitely changes the game on the defensive end, but he is raw offensively, though he has a nie jump hook when he goes quickly. I understand why NBA teams covet his size and athleticism. However, I don't understand why nobody covets Hibbert's size, athleticism and skill. I played the espn lottery and mock draft game the other day and not once did Hibbert's name appear as a lottery selection. Not sure if Ford assumes Hibbert will return to GTown for another season, but I don't understand the huge discrepancy between Hibbert and Oden, especially since Oden has been playing for so long and received so much coaching, while Hibbert is still fairly raw and unpolished.

Sacramento's NCAA Regional Games

At yesteday's Sacramento regional, I learned that Washington State is not nearly as boring as everyone seems to believe. Sure, they focus on defense and are fairly deliberate offensively, but they have some players who are fun to watch and they play a good style of play, with lots of motion and spacing to allow players an opportunity to make plays.

Everyone knows about Derek Low- a player with a little Steve Nash in him-, Kyle Weaver-their jacknife player who does a little bit of everything- and Robbie Cowgill-their skinny, floppy-haired, bearded post player who steadies the team with his defense and poise.

However, who knew Ivory Clark would take over and dominate Oral Roberts with his defense, namely his shot blocking from the weakside? And, who knew Taylor Rochestie may be more Steve Nash-like than Low?

Now, when I say "Steve Nash-like" I do not mean to suggest they will be a two-time NBA MVP or that their skills parallel Nash. I'm not trying to compare them to another player and using the first white PG that comes to mind.

Instead, Low is the most efficient player I have seen this year, much like Nash. They do not waste movement. They never play too fast. They use fakes to keep the defense off-balance and create space. Low really did nothing spectacular, nothing to make SportsCenter, but that's part of his genius. He doesn't need to make "great" plays because everything he does is fundamentally sound and the absolute correct play. That's Steve Nash-like.

As for Rochestie, he plays with a little of Nash's flair. He jumps, draws defense in the air and passes to an open man at the last minute. He puts his head down and drives amongst the bigger players and finds a way to make a tough, contested shot by using his body. These are Nash-like plays.

Together, they are fun to watch. I don't care what anyone says about the Cougars being boring or too deliberate. I challenge anyone to name a back court a coach would rather watch fundamentally and aesthetically.

As for the game, it was terribly officiated. One of the worst college officiating jobs I have seen. Just amazing. They completely missed a blatant goal tending and balls clearly went off of players right in front of officials only to be rewarded to the wrong team. One official had his head turned and basically missed a play entirely.

None of the games were very close. Oral Roberts was probably the most impressive losing team. Gonzaga looked terrible and Weber State was overmatched. As for George Washington, that was the worst performance by a college team I have seen in a while. Several people around me said they felt like they were watching a high school team. Is the A-10 that bad? How did GW win 3 games to win the conference tournament? They did not show anything which led me to believe they could win three in a row. They were long, but soft; they did not shoot well; they did not handle the ball well; they switched defenses frequently and none worked; posts could not catch the ball; they id not block out. I seriously could not think of one positive comment about GW.

It is sad that poor footwork is so prevalent that officials have basically changed the rules and now allow players to travel. We accepted this for years in the NBA, but called women's basketball and college basketball "more fundamental" because they did not allow traveling. But, now players switch pivot feet, run into their moves, etc. It's impossible to guard someone when they can sweep and take another step before dribbling or they can catch and pivot to square to the basket and then change pivot feet. We look for reasons why Team USA struggles in International competition: maybe it's because they still call traveling, while we are too lazy to teach good footwork or make the too frequent traveling calls during games.

I'm watching the UNLV vs. Georgia Tech game and Billy Packer is getting really excited. He can't figure out how the smaller team (UNLV) keeps getting so many offensive rebounds. Why are we so consumed with height? Height does not rebound. Few rebounds are taken above the rim and almost all DI players can get above the rim anyway. Rebounding, especially offensively, is aggressiveness and quickness, not height. Especially when a team (UNLV) shoots 25+ three-pointers in a game. You'd think a "legend" would understand this by now.

NCAA Practices

Yesterday, the 8 teams playing in the Sacramento regional had open practices, which I attended. Before making observations, I have to relate a story I heard on the radio on the way to the game.

Davey D is a local DJ on the hip-hop station in town. Apparently, he's going to Africa and continues to tell his audience about what a humanitarian he is. The constant pats on the back are nauseating, so I quickly change the channel. So, I'm not even sure why he is going.

Yesterday, he received a call from a lady who said she knew nothing of Sierra Leone. In explaining people's ignorance of Africa, he said he was going to Sierra Leone, in west Africa, near Kenya. Now, I'm not positive exactly where Sierra Leone is located, but I know Kenya is in east Africa, on the entire other side of the continent. I just found it hilarious that this guy is being so pompous about how good he is and how dumb other people are, and he's equally ignorant.

Back to the practices:

UCLA and Washington State ran the best workouts. Nobody wanted to show much, but it's obvious the teams have a system and know where they are going to get shots.

Vanderbilt, on the other hand, took shoot-around to the extreme, as they stood around and took shots like they were warming up for a pick-up game at the park.

Contrary to the local paper's report, Darren Collison worked out for the Bruins.

While most teams did some type of full court passing drill, like the five-man weave, Gonzaga was the only team that did a full court drill incorporating jump stops and eliminating traveling violations. Most other teams went up and down without worrying about travels on the catch and pass.

Gonzaga was also the only team that did any defensive drills, as they incorporated close-outs and rotations in their warm-ups.

Indiana worked on lay-ups to begin practice.

George Washington did full court ball handling without finishing shots.

Washington State started with some Pistol Pete ball handling drills.

George Washington went 5v5 in the half court.

George Washington's post players worked only on a sweep and go move from the high post and off the block. They traveled almost every time. Something I'm going to watch in today's games.

We missed Oral Roberts. However, after the practices, UCLA and WSU look ready and Gonzaga vs. Indiana looks to be a potentially very good game.

Sacramento Basketball Development

Saturday, I took a train to Long Island to hang out in the Basketball Results gym with Jerry Powell. While watching and assisting with several workouts, I was astonished by the level of the players. On Saturday, Powell trained more future DI women's basketball players than there are playing for Sacramento high schools right now. This is what I was thinking on the train back to Manhattan.

This morning, the local paper wrote about the lack of local players playing in the NCAA Tournament, as Sacramento is represented by only three players, and two of those attended only one year of high school in the area. When searching for reasons (excuses), a local coach mentioned the small population, football players and other excuses.

However, Sacramento is plenty big. In fact, in a November 2005 Sports Illustrated article, Sacramento was listed as one of the most disappointing big cities for producing basketball talent:

Several million-plus metro areas have produced surprisingly few blue-chippers out of the 500-plus players accounted for in our survey: Pittsburgh (1), Phoenix (2), Cleveland (2), Denver (1), Sacramento (1), San Antonio (0), Salt Lake City (2), Providence (1) and Buffalo (1).

And, my response today, as it was then, is similar.
Sacramento as a community does not work to elevate its basketball players; instead, anymosity runs deep and trust is non-existent. When I pulled into the gym in Long Island, a local high school coach said that he had told one of his players not to bother coming out for the team next season if he did not workout all summer with Powell. That would never happen in Sacramento: the last person high school coaches want their players to see is a good trainer. Sitting in on the workouts was another high school coach and an AAU coach.

Coaches see a resource to help their players improve and they utilize it. In Sacramento, coaches and trainers try to take ownership of players and prevent them from working with other people or playing with other teams. Nobody thinks about what is best for the player; only what serves their own best interests.

And, while there are other reasons to explain the lack of talent matriculating from Sacramento high schools, the lack of collaboration is a huge reason. Players do not train enough, whether with their high school coach, AAU coach or an outside trainer. Instead, they follow the hype and play game after game, playing on multiple teams in the off-season to increase exposure, rather than concentrating on improving their games. In Sacramento, we try to make up for inadequacies by playing in front of college coaches more often rather than simply getting better, faster, stronger, quicker, etc.

Going to Long Island opened my eyes as to one of the reasons why so many players matriculate from New York and why so few matriculate from Sacramento.

Big East Tourney Thoughts

Some random thoughts and impressions after attending the Big East Tournament last weekend:

(1) All season, draft sites had Jeff Green projected as a late first round draft pick. After watching him play in person, he reminds me of Josh Howard when Howard left Wake Forest. Howard was the league MVP and had done pretty much everything for the Deacons. Green was the MVP of the Big East and has proven he can do just about everything: pass, shoot, defend. I don't know where Green will be or should be drafted, but, much like with Howard, many teams who pass on Green will regret it.

(2) Aaron Gray, even though he played terribly in the Big East Final, is a skilled, though unathletic post player. He certainly is not a lottery pick and is possibly a more skilled Joel Pryzbilla, if he gets stronger and improves his balance.

(3) The anticipation skills of Syracuse's big men (Roberts and Watkins) were astonishingly bad.

(4) Georgetown has five future pros (Summers, Ewing, Jr., Hibbert, Green, Rivers). Why has nobody talked about them all season? Carolina this. Florida that. Ohio State this. What about the Hoyas?

(5) Anthony Mason, Jr. has a horrible first step, no explosiveness (is he recovering from an injury?) and shoots too many fade aways.

(6) Coaches often talk about "it," even though they cannot describe "it." Louisville's Edgar Sosa has "it." He did not score many points, but every shot he made was a huge shot.

(7) Who told Marquette's Dominic James that he was a shooter? James could be like a Kevin Johnson-type player if he could get over his infatuation with the three-point shot. He kept shooting and missing all game long. When he concentrates on getting other people the ball, he's a good PG. But, when he starts to shoot, he becomes a very average player. No way he should have been the first team Big East PG over Villanova's Scottie Reynolds.

(8) Why do players who cannot shoot continue to shoot? Besides James, Williams from Louisville comes to mind. He jacks. And, he's a terrible three-point shooter. In fact, Louisville may have been the best defensive team in the tournament, but they go long stretches without even attempting a good shot. Part of me thinks they are dangerous because they can guard people, Williams can create his own shot against anyone and Sosa has "it," but part of me thinks they suck because they take horrible shots.

(9) The Big East is a coaches' conference. Jay Wright, Mike Brey, JT III, John Bielien (plus Boeheim and Pitino). I see the attraction for recruits.

(10) I can't wait to see Jay Wright with Corey Fisher and Reyonolds next season.

(11) Talk about freshman guards. Notre Dame's Jackson, Reyonolds, Sosa, Jeremiah Rivers.

(12) Jonathan Wallace is the consumate college PG.

As for the tournament:
Arkansas over Syracuse?

The Big Ten earned six teams? How? Everytime I watched the Big 10 I changed to a different game because I thought every team besides Ohio State and Wisconsin was terrible.

I think there is far too much emphasis placed on the conference tournament. UCLA was fighting for the #1 overall seed and after a quarterfinal loss, they lose their #1 seed. Arkansas was barely on the ma before they reached their conference tournament final. UCLA had 10 wins against the top 25, was #2 in RPI and won the Pac 10, which has 6 teams in the tournament. Maybe they did not deserve a #1 seed. But, if they did not, what does that say about the entire season, which apparently is secondary to a conference tournament?

I love Championship Week as a fan; but, as a coach, I like the Ivy Leaguewhere the regular season champion is rewarded for performance and consistency over the entire season, not one weekend.

The Ron Artest Saga

Last year, when the Kings acquired Ron Artest, I titled my blog piece about the trade, "Hide the Children, Artest Coming to Town." I guess I wasn't too far off...

The blog appears to be prophetic in other ways too. First, I called Adelman's demise and Pete Carril's exit.

Then, I suggested that for the trade to work, it had to be the first of a couple deals, not just a stand alone trade. As we have seen, the Kings have failed to make subsequent deals and the Kings remain mediocre. As I wrote: "he (Artest) alone is not the answer."

I also wrote:

The Kings offense needs re-shuffling and Artest's presence does little to seal the interior or stop dribble penetration from opposing point guards.

The Kings offense remains disjointed, as it often appears as though they have two different systems depending on who is in the game; Mike Bibby still struggles to stop dribble penetration and Abdur-Rahim and Miller do not seal the interior.
I wrote:

The Artest trade signals a momentous change in the Kings' operandi, and another deal of some sort, whether major or minor, would make sense.

The Kings' operandi could not have changed more, as they attempt to go from an entertaining, movement-oriented, fast-paced exciting team to a grind it out, defensive slugfest organization because the Maloofs believe that is what wins.
As I wrote:

Does Petrie trust Artest with his legacy? Can Ron-Ron resuscitate the Kings? Can Artest will Abdur-Rahim, Bibby and Miller to defend better? Will the Kings move to a high-low offense featuring Miller high and Artest low? These are intresting time for the Sacramento franchise.

The answers so far appear to be: Yes, Petrie trusted Artest with his legacy; yes, Ron-Ron briefly resuscitated the Kings; No, he has been able to will his teammates to defend better; No, Artest still freelances on the perimeter, shooting far too many jump shots, rather than getting weaker forwards in the post. Unfortunately, these are no longer interesting times for the Kings; instead, the franchise is in a state of flux, heading in several directions at once.

Nike's New Unis

Apparently a few of Nike's flagship programs will wear some new unis this week. So far, all the commentary I have read is negative.

Personally, I like the look, especially for Ohio State (Syracuse not so much, especially the shorts). And, these new unis will certainly motivate players to hit the weightroom and work on their physique to fill out the form-fitting unis. Talk about a motivator.

I guess I like the look because it looks like the way players dress when they workout, with their Under Armor gear and baggy shorts. I'm sure most people over 30 will dislike the new look, but I approve. Plus, why have all the teams dressed the same. A little variety is a good thing, right?

The Maloofs Killed the Kings

While Mark Cuban is the poster-boy owner for the NBA, no owners are as visible in their community as the Maloofs. The Maloofs are the golden rich boys who turned the Kings into a winner and the passionate Kings fans love them for it. However, as this past election illustrated, the love is gone.

The Maloofs lost Sacramento's adoration because of a few ill-timed publicity stunts (the Carl's Jr. commercial) and their insistence on butting their heads into basketball business. The Maloofs are great businessmen. However, they don't know jack about basketball. And, just because the Kings turned into a winner on their watch, they somehow decided they earned a right to use their business acumen to make basketball decisions. And, now the Kings are an average team again.

Before the 2005-06 season, the Maloofs committed to the Brad Miller-Mike Bibby-Peja Stojakovic trifecta and pronounced their starting five as good as any in the NBA.

A couple games into the season, local "writer" Ailene Voisin suggested Peja Stojakovic was single-handedly responsible for the Kings' poor start. At the time, I thought a 1-3 start was no unreasonable due to the changes in the roster (additions of Shareef-Abdur-Rahim and Bonzi Wells to the starting line-up) and tough road games. When Voisin actually watched the Kings play, and saw that Peja was shooting 50% from three-point range, she turned her ire toward Rick Adelman.

Later, the Kings traded for Ron Artest and he was heralded as a hero and the Kings' savior. But, when the Kings were bounced from the play-offs, that was Adelman's fault. So, Adelman has to be fired. A new coach would save the Kings.

Only, now the Kings remain mediocre, the media and fans want Eric Mussleman fired and fans suggest Artest is now the problem.

The problem, beyond Voisin's columns and the irrationality of Kings' fans, is the owners' visibility and misunderstanding of the game of basketball.

First, the owners created the problems in 2005-06 by grossly overestimating the talent on its roster. How does one look at a starting line-up with four of the worst dfensive players at their respective positions in the league and believe it is a championship team? I'm all about offense, but when there is nobody to deter the opponent around the basket and a point guard who cannot keep anyone in front of him, what do you expect? Next, how is a 6'9 PF playing on gimpy knees who has never sniffed the play-offs the answer to put a team over the top?

Second, the owners panicked. Yes, the owners grossly overestimated its talent and made a mistake building around a Bibby-Peja-Miller trifecta. However, with this trifecta, the Kings played entertaining basketball with lots of ball movement. When they traded for Artest, they were still mediocre; however, their games were also no longer enertaining. The Kings fortunes turned when Artest was acquired because SAR and Bozi returned from injury at the same time (and Peja had missed time with injuries as well). It was not Artest who saved the Kings; it was a confluence of things.

Third, the owners were fooled by the Kings finish. The Kings were still mediocre. However, because everyone bought the "Artest as savior" myth, nd blamed Adelman for the team's lackluster defense, a new coach, it was assumed, plus a full year of Artest, would make the Kings contenders. Instead, the Kings fired a coach who maximized the talents of a couple overrated players (Bibby and Miller) and led the Kings within seconds of an NBA Finals berth for a well-prepared, defensive-minded coach. Unfortunately, the Kings do not have a defensive roster. And, the owners allowed their second best defender (Bonzi) to walk.

So, now the Kings have a team built around the mercurial Artest with a bunch of players who do not really fit together with a defensive-minded coach and defensively-challenged players. What does that create? A very mediocre team. Why? Because the owners interfered ith basketball decisions because they thought they knew what it takes to win because they run a billion-dollar casino.

Now, everyone wants Mussleman fired. Is it Mussleman's fault? Probably not. It's impossible to change systems in a couple weeks of training camp.

The problem is personnel. If the Kings are going to be a defensive team, they have to acquire a defensive presence in the paint. Miller is not a defensive presence; he's a pushover. You cannot have a dominating defense without a presence inside. While Avery Johnson gets all the credit for the Mavs' defense, most ignore the acquisitions of Eric Dampier and Dasagna Diop who patrol the middle, block shots and change others. As I wrote early in his career, Dirk Nowitski was not a bad defensive player; he just was not the anchor of a defense. Once he played with an anchor, he suddenly morphed into a good defensive player. It's not magic.

If the Kings are determined to build around Artest (a mistake), they need to decide how to use him. Artest is more of an isolation player; an Eatsern Conference, grinder-type of game. This is a stark contrast from the movement and pace of the recent Kings. Plus, a team built around Artest is one which ignores the talents of Garcia, Salmons and Martin.

What's the solution? Fire Mussleman? Trade Artest? Who knows? However, the Kings need to make a couple deals. The current roster is never going to be anything more than average, regardless of the coach. Is Artest the problem? Bibby? Miller? Probably all of the above, depending on the coach and his system.

Personally, I like the way the Kings used to play and I think Martin, Garcia and Salmons are ideal players to use in an uptempo, quick moving, motion offense. However, in this system, SAR has to go. Miller fits offensively, but he needs a bigger presence next to him defensively. Bibby fits, but a Bibby/Miller combo is never going to make a good defensive team.

So, it depends on what deals Petrie can make, where the Kings draft, etc. However, regardless of what's next, Kings fans can only hope the Maloofs allow Petrie to do his job, while they do theirs, running the business operations, not making basketball decisions.