Memphis guard Derrick Rose has clearly established himself as one of the top two players in the 2008 NBA Draft, assuming he declares for the draft.
The Memphis Grizzlies have established themselves as one of the worst teams in the NBA, giving them a decent shot at grabbing one of the top two picks in the 2008 NBA Draft.
However, if there is a bright spot for the Grizzlies, besides Rudy Gay, it is the abundance of young point guards with Mike Conley, Jr., Kyle Lowery and Javaris Crittendon.
Of course, the Grizz do not have the most passionate fans in the NBA, so business-wise, grabbing the local college star who brought the local university its first trip to the Final Four in 2 decades makes a lot of sense.
If these scenarios play out - Rose declaring and the Grizz winning the lottery and drafting first or second - the Grizz will have an interesting dilemma.
I wonder what the Trailblazers would offer to ease the Grizz pressure and take Conley Jr off its hands to re-unite the point guard with Greg Oden. Who would interest the Grizz? Channing Frye, Martell Webster and a 1st round pick? It's not the greatest trade, but can you imagine the perimeter length with Rose, Webster and Gay? Portland needs to clear some bodies to make room for Fernandez and Oden in next year's rotation. With James Jones returning from injury, Brandon Roy, Fernandez and Outlaw, Webster is expendable. With Oden, Pryzbilla and Lamarcus Aldridge, Frye is expendable. And, Portland does not really have any need for another young player this year, with Fernandez arriving and two more young players stashed in Europe.
Of course, then Memphis' PG prosperity would become Portland's PG problem with Conley, Rodriguez, Blake and Jack, which means P-Town could make another deal for a future 1st round pick, supplemental player or added versatility.
Also, Memphis could pass on Rose and draft for need. However, is that a wise business decision? As good as Conley was last year at Ohio State, Rose is far more marketable in Memphis. Heck, he's already the cities biggest star. For an organization struggling to sell tickets, an athletic, high-flying hometown point guard might be the answer business-wise and basketball-wise.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
College Basketball Media
Here's another problem with college basketball coverage. Jeff Goodman is supposed to be a college basketball expert, but he lists Davidson's Bob McKillop as the 15th best coach left in the tournament.
Ranking the coaches is difficult, but I can assure you that there are not 14 coaches better than McKillop.
Ranking the coaches is difficult, but I can assure you that there are not 14 coaches better than McKillop.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Anaheim Regional
First, let me say that every time I visit another arena, I leave more and more impressed with Arco Arena in Sacramento. I know the Maloofs want a newer arena, but Arco is far better than the Honda Center in Anaheim. Arco is the most accessible arena I have visited and the seats are closer to the action than at many arenas which are built for hockey, not basketball. Plus, if the Maloofs got their new arena with the glitzy luxury boxes, what companies are going to buy them?
On to the games:
I continue to read about UCLA and officials. Jay Bilas is adamant that Sloan was fouled on the final play of the game. The play was across the court from me, so I'm not going to judge whether it was a foul or not. However, there were at least six times that I could not believe calls the officials made. The crew that did the UCLA game on Saturday is a horrible crew. They were horrible in the game that they did on Thursday, too, when I had no rooting interest. The short, white heaired ref (I think it is Tim Higgins) just makes up rules and makes calls when he is tired to slow the pace of the game. He should be forced into retirement. He made a travel call that was a clear misinterpretation of the rule book, one of the charges called was not even close, and there were several other calls that were equally bad. And, the same thing happened in their game on Thursday.
For that matter, the Stanford game against Marquette was terribly officiated. It did not matter because Brook Lopez made the shot, but he was clearly fouled on the final shot of the game, as the defender slid underneath him to take away his legs on the shot. But, no call was made and nobody argues about the officiating on that play.
I read the LA Times yesterday to see the officials explanation of the Trent Johnson ejection. Now, minutes before Johnson was ejected, I turned to my girlfriend and said he will last two years without the Lopez twins before he is fired because he is a very average coach. We were stunned that Stanford could not get the ball to Brook Lopez in the first half when he was defended by a 6'4 guard. Then, Johnson gets ejected.
Now, I do not believe he should have been ejected. The official explanation, per the L.A. Times, was that he had been warned and that a timeout had not been issued. This is crap. It was the official timeout that occurs at 16:00, 12:00, 8:00 and 4:00. Both teams were on the floor for the timeout. Ben Howland did the same thing three times during the UCLA game (fwiw, I've never seen Howland argue as much, the officials were that bad, and my friend said that she could not believe how calm he remained as she would have been irate with the calls going against UCLA). One technical was plenty. I was watching the interaction the entire time and I thought they had called the first technical, but I never saw it. And, fwiw, it was a terrible call that led to the technicals. If you try to split a tight trap and you trip on the defenders, that is your fault, not a defensive foul.
I'm sick of officials who think they are important. Good officials go unnoticed. So far, the officials have drawn far too much attention, which means they are not doing a good job officiating in the tournament. All season, I almost never saw technical fouls; the only coach I remember getting a technical was Capel at Oklahoma, who seems to get T'd up during every televised game. Then, I see four technicals on Friday and Saturday, all within the first 10:00 of a game (Johnson's, Huggins and Dakich). Coaches have a responsibility to observe the rules and coaching decorum, but the officials cannot change the rules and their approach just because its the tourney and they need to understand the pressure the coaches feel to win and justify their mammoth salaries. The game is for the players, not the coaches or the officials.
On to the games:
I continue to read about UCLA and officials. Jay Bilas is adamant that Sloan was fouled on the final play of the game. The play was across the court from me, so I'm not going to judge whether it was a foul or not. However, there were at least six times that I could not believe calls the officials made. The crew that did the UCLA game on Saturday is a horrible crew. They were horrible in the game that they did on Thursday, too, when I had no rooting interest. The short, white heaired ref (I think it is Tim Higgins) just makes up rules and makes calls when he is tired to slow the pace of the game. He should be forced into retirement. He made a travel call that was a clear misinterpretation of the rule book, one of the charges called was not even close, and there were several other calls that were equally bad. And, the same thing happened in their game on Thursday.
For that matter, the Stanford game against Marquette was terribly officiated. It did not matter because Brook Lopez made the shot, but he was clearly fouled on the final shot of the game, as the defender slid underneath him to take away his legs on the shot. But, no call was made and nobody argues about the officiating on that play.
I read the LA Times yesterday to see the officials explanation of the Trent Johnson ejection. Now, minutes before Johnson was ejected, I turned to my girlfriend and said he will last two years without the Lopez twins before he is fired because he is a very average coach. We were stunned that Stanford could not get the ball to Brook Lopez in the first half when he was defended by a 6'4 guard. Then, Johnson gets ejected.
Now, I do not believe he should have been ejected. The official explanation, per the L.A. Times, was that he had been warned and that a timeout had not been issued. This is crap. It was the official timeout that occurs at 16:00, 12:00, 8:00 and 4:00. Both teams were on the floor for the timeout. Ben Howland did the same thing three times during the UCLA game (fwiw, I've never seen Howland argue as much, the officials were that bad, and my friend said that she could not believe how calm he remained as she would have been irate with the calls going against UCLA). One technical was plenty. I was watching the interaction the entire time and I thought they had called the first technical, but I never saw it. And, fwiw, it was a terrible call that led to the technicals. If you try to split a tight trap and you trip on the defenders, that is your fault, not a defensive foul.
I'm sick of officials who think they are important. Good officials go unnoticed. So far, the officials have drawn far too much attention, which means they are not doing a good job officiating in the tournament. All season, I almost never saw technical fouls; the only coach I remember getting a technical was Capel at Oklahoma, who seems to get T'd up during every televised game. Then, I see four technicals on Friday and Saturday, all within the first 10:00 of a game (Johnson's, Huggins and Dakich). Coaches have a responsibility to observe the rules and coaching decorum, but the officials cannot change the rules and their approach just because its the tourney and they need to understand the pressure the coaches feel to win and justify their mammoth salaries. The game is for the players, not the coaches or the officials.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Bubble
I watched far too many basketball games yesterday. I am already losing enthusiasm for the NCAA Tournament, and the teams have not been selected. I blame ESPN.
ESPN has created a cottage industry out of "Bracketology," just as they did with the NFL Draft, as both feature year-round programming now, not just coverage of an event.
So, for the past several weeks, every college broadcast has featured discussion of the "bubble" teams and their relative merit.
Some, like Jim Boeheim, advocate expanding the field of 64.5 to give more teams the opportunity. Why? Just to match the lunacy of rewarding.500 teams with bowl game invitations? There are not 64 deserving teams right now. Why add more teams because a selection committee cannot decide which undeserving team should make it?
This morning, I saw Virginia Tech's Seth Greenberg interviewed about Va Tech's merits. I like Greenberg. I liked Greenberg when he was at Long Bech State. However, he used yesterday's post-game news conference and an interview today to lobby for inclusion. I don't blame him so much as the way the entire tournament selection process has taken on a life of its own. To fill more time and create more controversy, the hosts ask the questions and coaches are obliged to answer. Couldn't ESPN show a women's game or a high school state championship game rather than hour after hour of studio shows fixated on the brackets and the bubble?
I feel no sympathy for BCS teams. As I see it, BCS teams have two chances to make the NCAA Tournament: have a good regular season or win the conference tournament. For mid-majors, they often have one opportunity, which makes their entire regular season irrelevant. VCU dominated its conference, but lost in its conference tournament and likely will not make the tournament. I dislike this, as I believe the regular season should have some merit and value. What if St. Mary's was excluded after a 25-win regular season because they lost in their conference tournament, in OT, to USD on USD's home floor? That one game decides a team's fate more than a 30-game regular season body of work?
A BCS team, as I see it, needs to be 1 or 2 games above .500 in conference and play a decent, not great non-conference schedule and win a game or two against pretty good teams. Va. Tech's best win is against Miami. I have no problem if they make the tournament, but when your best argument is that we only lost to UNC by 2, we have issues. When did close losses start to count as positives? Sure, if an Ivy League school goes to Carolina and has a close loss, that's a good achievement. But a conference foe on a neutral court? If you can't beat a pretty good team all year, why do you belong in the tournament?
When Villanova played Georgetown in the Big East Quarterfinals, some described it as a must win for Nova. Again, I like Nova and Jay Wright is one of my favorite coaches. One of the ESPN guys said it was unfair that a team's season rests on beating the best team in your league. Really? That's what happens in every mid-major conference. That's what happened with USD, as they beat Gonzaga to get into the tournament. If you can't beat the best in your conference, why do you deserve to make the tournament? I agree that the regular season should count for more - I don't even like the conference tournaments and only watch because it is the only time ESPN shows many of the teams, like Fullerton State and Boise State who I enjoyed watching. But, if a team like VCU is eliminated because they lost in their conference tournament despite winning the regular season, why is it unfair to hold Va. Tech or Nova to the same criteria?
The ESPN guys like Digger and Dookie V continue to say that a team like Illinois State would not win 25 games in a conference like the Big East. That's not the point. You don't have to win 25 games in the Big East. You basically have to go .500. And, because of the unbalanced schedule, you can hope for the easy schedule. The only conference record that mean anything, to me, is the Pac 10 because they play everyone home and away so there is balance between conference members. Imagine a Big East team that played GTown and Louisville once each, but played St. John's and Seton Hall twice each. Much easier schedule than playing GTown and Louisville twice and SH and SJ once each.
With the mid-majors, the point is that it is reasonable to expect a very good mid-major team like Illinois State or St Joe's could go .500 in a BCS league. The ACC has 2 ranked teams. Va Tech went 9-7 in the ACC, but did not beat Duke or UNC. So, who did they beat? Nc State, BC, Florida State, etc. We're arguing that St. Joe's or Illinois State could not beat these teams? It's not that a mid-major would duplicate its record in a major conference; it's that a mid-major could duplicate an average record in a BCS conference, and an average record in a BCS conference is often enough.
Personally, as a Pac 10 homer, I hope the Pac 10 teams get in to the tourney. When looking at Nova or Va Tech against Arizona State, at least ASU beat Stanford and Xavier. However, if they do not get in because they could not beat USC in the conference tournament, so be it. They had their chances. They could have won 1 or 2 more regular season games or they could have won a game or two in the conference tournament. Same with all the BCS conference teams. There just is no room for Dookie V to get all choked up this afternoon when one of his power teams like Syracuse or Maryland get left out of the tournament because they had plenty of opportunities.
The only teams I feel bad for our mid and low majors who won their conference championship, but slipped in the conference tournament. Teams like VCU, who we know is good enough, as they beat Duke last year. These teams proved all season that they are good teams, but then had one bad loss in a tournament and all the work all season long, all the wins, mean nothing at the end of the day. I would feel much better about the tournament if it meant 2 teams in from a weaker conference versus the 8th place team fromthe Big East or 7th place team from the Pac 10.
ESPN has created a cottage industry out of "Bracketology," just as they did with the NFL Draft, as both feature year-round programming now, not just coverage of an event.
So, for the past several weeks, every college broadcast has featured discussion of the "bubble" teams and their relative merit.
Some, like Jim Boeheim, advocate expanding the field of 64.5 to give more teams the opportunity. Why? Just to match the lunacy of rewarding.500 teams with bowl game invitations? There are not 64 deserving teams right now. Why add more teams because a selection committee cannot decide which undeserving team should make it?
This morning, I saw Virginia Tech's Seth Greenberg interviewed about Va Tech's merits. I like Greenberg. I liked Greenberg when he was at Long Bech State. However, he used yesterday's post-game news conference and an interview today to lobby for inclusion. I don't blame him so much as the way the entire tournament selection process has taken on a life of its own. To fill more time and create more controversy, the hosts ask the questions and coaches are obliged to answer. Couldn't ESPN show a women's game or a high school state championship game rather than hour after hour of studio shows fixated on the brackets and the bubble?
I feel no sympathy for BCS teams. As I see it, BCS teams have two chances to make the NCAA Tournament: have a good regular season or win the conference tournament. For mid-majors, they often have one opportunity, which makes their entire regular season irrelevant. VCU dominated its conference, but lost in its conference tournament and likely will not make the tournament. I dislike this, as I believe the regular season should have some merit and value. What if St. Mary's was excluded after a 25-win regular season because they lost in their conference tournament, in OT, to USD on USD's home floor? That one game decides a team's fate more than a 30-game regular season body of work?
A BCS team, as I see it, needs to be 1 or 2 games above .500 in conference and play a decent, not great non-conference schedule and win a game or two against pretty good teams. Va. Tech's best win is against Miami. I have no problem if they make the tournament, but when your best argument is that we only lost to UNC by 2, we have issues. When did close losses start to count as positives? Sure, if an Ivy League school goes to Carolina and has a close loss, that's a good achievement. But a conference foe on a neutral court? If you can't beat a pretty good team all year, why do you belong in the tournament?
When Villanova played Georgetown in the Big East Quarterfinals, some described it as a must win for Nova. Again, I like Nova and Jay Wright is one of my favorite coaches. One of the ESPN guys said it was unfair that a team's season rests on beating the best team in your league. Really? That's what happens in every mid-major conference. That's what happened with USD, as they beat Gonzaga to get into the tournament. If you can't beat the best in your conference, why do you deserve to make the tournament? I agree that the regular season should count for more - I don't even like the conference tournaments and only watch because it is the only time ESPN shows many of the teams, like Fullerton State and Boise State who I enjoyed watching. But, if a team like VCU is eliminated because they lost in their conference tournament despite winning the regular season, why is it unfair to hold Va. Tech or Nova to the same criteria?
The ESPN guys like Digger and Dookie V continue to say that a team like Illinois State would not win 25 games in a conference like the Big East. That's not the point. You don't have to win 25 games in the Big East. You basically have to go .500. And, because of the unbalanced schedule, you can hope for the easy schedule. The only conference record that mean anything, to me, is the Pac 10 because they play everyone home and away so there is balance between conference members. Imagine a Big East team that played GTown and Louisville once each, but played St. John's and Seton Hall twice each. Much easier schedule than playing GTown and Louisville twice and SH and SJ once each.
With the mid-majors, the point is that it is reasonable to expect a very good mid-major team like Illinois State or St Joe's could go .500 in a BCS league. The ACC has 2 ranked teams. Va Tech went 9-7 in the ACC, but did not beat Duke or UNC. So, who did they beat? Nc State, BC, Florida State, etc. We're arguing that St. Joe's or Illinois State could not beat these teams? It's not that a mid-major would duplicate its record in a major conference; it's that a mid-major could duplicate an average record in a BCS conference, and an average record in a BCS conference is often enough.
Personally, as a Pac 10 homer, I hope the Pac 10 teams get in to the tourney. When looking at Nova or Va Tech against Arizona State, at least ASU beat Stanford and Xavier. However, if they do not get in because they could not beat USC in the conference tournament, so be it. They had their chances. They could have won 1 or 2 more regular season games or they could have won a game or two in the conference tournament. Same with all the BCS conference teams. There just is no room for Dookie V to get all choked up this afternoon when one of his power teams like Syracuse or Maryland get left out of the tournament because they had plenty of opportunities.
The only teams I feel bad for our mid and low majors who won their conference championship, but slipped in the conference tournament. Teams like VCU, who we know is good enough, as they beat Duke last year. These teams proved all season that they are good teams, but then had one bad loss in a tournament and all the work all season long, all the wins, mean nothing at the end of the day. I would feel much better about the tournament if it meant 2 teams in from a weaker conference versus the 8th place team fromthe Big East or 7th place team from the Pac 10.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Heat Forfeit the Rest of the Season
First, Pat Riley announces that he is going to take some time away from the team to scout college players. Next, Dwayne Wade shuts it down for the rest of the season so he is healthy for the Olympics.
I watched some ESPN programs yesterday and unanimously, these moves were looked upon favorably. Basically, the opinion was that it was a good business move to give Wade time to rest and that it improves the Heat's chances to draft Michael Beasley. Even when asked how they would feel if they were a Heat season ticket holder, many said they approved because they'll be a season ticket holder next year when the Heat have a healthy Wade and maybe Beasley.
I cannot believe the degree to which these moves are accepted and even applauded as prudent business decisions. This is why I like the European system of promotion and relegation. The Heat's season would be far more interesting if they faced the potential demotion to the NBDL next season if they finished in the bottom three. After all, why reward a team for throwing a quarter of its season?
If Wade is really injured, I understand the precaution even if it makes a quarter of the season meaningless. However, I cannot believe people accept a coach abandoning the bench to scout college players. I know Riley is the President and must make the all-important draft pick. However, that's why you employ scouts and a General Manager. I think Riley abdicating his coaching responsibilities completely undermines the NBA season. I can't decide whether this is worse than the last time he quit when the Heat were struggling, only to return when they were playing better.
These scenarios simply illustrate that the NBA is a big business. Players are mini-corporations. Converse, Gatorade and T-Mobile don't want to see Wade playing sub-par basketball and they certainly want him healthy to participate in the Olympics, since everyone is so enamored with China's buying power.
I understand all the reasons, and don't want Wade to injure himself further, but it further hurts the credibility and integrity of the NBA, which is trying to restore its credibility after the Tim Donaghy scandal.
When a professional sports league is simply a big business, it hurts the fans and the sanctity of the game. If fans can't believe their heroes are going out to give an honest effort, and instead shut down their season's to prepare for the Olympics, try to acquire a higher draft pick or maybe use steroids, what is there for fans to believe in?
I watched some ESPN programs yesterday and unanimously, these moves were looked upon favorably. Basically, the opinion was that it was a good business move to give Wade time to rest and that it improves the Heat's chances to draft Michael Beasley. Even when asked how they would feel if they were a Heat season ticket holder, many said they approved because they'll be a season ticket holder next year when the Heat have a healthy Wade and maybe Beasley.
I cannot believe the degree to which these moves are accepted and even applauded as prudent business decisions. This is why I like the European system of promotion and relegation. The Heat's season would be far more interesting if they faced the potential demotion to the NBDL next season if they finished in the bottom three. After all, why reward a team for throwing a quarter of its season?
If Wade is really injured, I understand the precaution even if it makes a quarter of the season meaningless. However, I cannot believe people accept a coach abandoning the bench to scout college players. I know Riley is the President and must make the all-important draft pick. However, that's why you employ scouts and a General Manager. I think Riley abdicating his coaching responsibilities completely undermines the NBA season. I can't decide whether this is worse than the last time he quit when the Heat were struggling, only to return when they were playing better.
These scenarios simply illustrate that the NBA is a big business. Players are mini-corporations. Converse, Gatorade and T-Mobile don't want to see Wade playing sub-par basketball and they certainly want him healthy to participate in the Olympics, since everyone is so enamored with China's buying power.
I understand all the reasons, and don't want Wade to injure himself further, but it further hurts the credibility and integrity of the NBA, which is trying to restore its credibility after the Tim Donaghy scandal.
When a professional sports league is simply a big business, it hurts the fans and the sanctity of the game. If fans can't believe their heroes are going out to give an honest effort, and instead shut down their season's to prepare for the Olympics, try to acquire a higher draft pick or maybe use steroids, what is there for fans to believe in?
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Luis Scola Steal
The media continues to make a big deal of Memphis giving Pau Gasol away. However, almost nothing is made of San Antonio giving Luis Scola away. I saw this on Hoops Hype:
I've waited for Scola to join the NBA for a couple seasons. While the Kings were signing Mikki Moore to a free agent contract, San Antonio was giving away Scola for cash and cap relief. The Kings could have taken Beno Udrih's contract instead of Butler, though I've always been intrigued by Butler too.
Scola was not the proven player than Gasol is, but the Grizz at least got some draft picks and a young player (Crittedon) in return for Gasol (and the Lakers dealt another rotation player in Kwame Brown), while San Antonio simply dealt Scola because they were unsure how he would fit with their nucleus. If they had concerns, it was another savvy move by the Spurs. However, the Rockets made out at least as well as the Lakers, as they acquired the player who possibly will save their season now that Yao is out and all it took was some cash and a player who wanted to return to Greece anyway.
When we look at trades, that has to be one of the all-time swipes, although I understand why the Spurs did it and never question the Spurs' management decisions. However, from a Rockets' perspective, has there been a more lop-sided trade, including the Gasol deal?
Luis Scola wasn't considered an option when the Rockets began discussing power forwards last summer. His name was on the list of players general manager Daryl Morey gave owner Leslie Alexander, but not because Morey believed he had any real chance of obtaining him. The Spurs owned his rights, and Morey didn't think they were inclined to trade with a division rival. Besides, there had to be teams with more to offer.
"He's the best guy," Morey told Alexander, "but it'll never happen."
Spurs general manager R.C. Buford assured Morey he was going to trade Scola's rights to the team that put the best offer on the table. If that offer was from a division rival, so be it. Morey made the deal happen by giving the Spurs cash, Vassilis Spanoulis and a second-round draft pick. He also agreed to take Jackie Butler's contract. Both teams got what they wanted.
I've waited for Scola to join the NBA for a couple seasons. While the Kings were signing Mikki Moore to a free agent contract, San Antonio was giving away Scola for cash and cap relief. The Kings could have taken Beno Udrih's contract instead of Butler, though I've always been intrigued by Butler too.
Scola was not the proven player than Gasol is, but the Grizz at least got some draft picks and a young player (Crittedon) in return for Gasol (and the Lakers dealt another rotation player in Kwame Brown), while San Antonio simply dealt Scola because they were unsure how he would fit with their nucleus. If they had concerns, it was another savvy move by the Spurs. However, the Rockets made out at least as well as the Lakers, as they acquired the player who possibly will save their season now that Yao is out and all it took was some cash and a player who wanted to return to Greece anyway.
When we look at trades, that has to be one of the all-time swipes, although I understand why the Spurs did it and never question the Spurs' management decisions. However, from a Rockets' perspective, has there been a more lop-sided trade, including the Gasol deal?
Sunday, March 09, 2008
College Point Guards
Across college basketball, names like DJ Augustin, Darren Collison and Ty Lawson receive most of the attention. However, I'm not sure I'd take any of the three over Kentucky's Ramel Bradley for my college program.
I'm not a Kentucky fan. However, Kentucky is always on television, so maybe Bradley has grown on me because of exposure. However, he is such a clutch player and leader. He always seems to make the big play. He's a great on-ball defender. He's tough and strong. I'm not a big SEC follower, and I know Shan Fooster at Vanderbilt has been incredible and Lofton at Tennessee is the reigning SEC MVP, but I don't think either is more valuable than Bradley. To me, he is the clear SEC MVP and deserves mention among the other top point guards throughout college basketball.
I'm not a Kentucky fan. However, Kentucky is always on television, so maybe Bradley has grown on me because of exposure. However, he is such a clutch player and leader. He always seems to make the big play. He's a great on-ball defender. He's tough and strong. I'm not a big SEC follower, and I know Shan Fooster at Vanderbilt has been incredible and Lofton at Tennessee is the reigning SEC MVP, but I don't think either is more valuable than Bradley. To me, he is the clear SEC MVP and deserves mention among the other top point guards throughout college basketball.
Friday, March 07, 2008
UCLA beats Stanford
I did not see the UCLA win over Stanford last night, so I eagerly checked some sites this morning after watching the highlights lights last night. The headlines and articles suggest UCLA made a ferocious comeback. Trent Johnson's post-game comments hinted at his displeasure with one call. Then, I read Doug Gottlieb's article.
I generally like Gottlieb. However, most UCLA fans claim he is anti-UCLA. After this article, it would be hard to prove otherwise.
First, there is the call. Lawrence Hill blocked Darren Collison's shot, but was called for a foul. Was it a bad call? Probably. Was it the only bad call? I doubt it. Furthermore, I recall Stanford winning at Arizona a couple weeks ago when Stanford benefitted from a terrible call on a Chase Budinger block attempt with sent Brook Lopez, I believe, to the line for the go ahead free throws. So, over the course of a season, things tend to balance out. If UCLA did not deserve the win last night because of the one call, as Gottlieb suggests ("The game only went to overtime on a terrible foul call on Lawrence Hill as he blocked Darren Collison's drive with 2.5 seconds remaining. In addition to the ludicrous call,"), then Stanford did not serve its win against Arizona.
Of course, in this case, the game went to overtime, so Stanford still had a shot. From the highlights, it looked like UCLA made some great plays down the stretch. According to Gottlieb, however, "UCLA looked OK, but got nothing from Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Alfred Aboya, Lorenzo Mata-Real and Josh Shipp."
Gottlieb did give Collison credit for taking over the game and making shots. But, then he took a swipe at probable Pac-10 Player of the Year Kevin Love saying that NBA folks are not as high on level as college fans. His reasoning was his inability to explode over Brook Lopez, a seven-footer destined for the top of the lottery.
However, he saved his last swipe for Head Coach Ben Howland, when he said "And while Love can play more of a perimeter game at the next level, he may not have the green light to do so at UCLA." Love shoots threes in almost every game. UCLA runs plays to get him perimeter shots. To suggest he does not have the green light at UCLA is to ignore the entire season.
People want to criticize UCLA's offense. Last time I looked, UCLA was 4th in offensive efficiency in the nation. While everyone labels the Bruins as a defensive team, its offense ranks much higher in efficiency than its defense. People criticize Howland because the team wins ugly. However, they do not put up 100ppg because they do not run down court and jack the first open three-point shot. They use the shot clock and get good shots. With Collison at the point, they know they can create a good shot with seconds left on the shot clock, so they never panic. If their original set does not create the desired shot, they run a high on-ball screen and take what the defense leaves open, either a lane for Collison, Love popping, Mbah a Moute stepping in the lane, Westbrook cutting or Shipp spotting up for three.
People, and those recruiting against UCLA, try to sell recruits on this idea that playing for Howland will stunt your offensive growth. However, Phil Jackson said that Jordan Farmar entered the NBA prepared to play. This idea that UCLA cannot play offense, develop players or prepare players for the next level is probably the biggest misconception in college basketball right now. The draft sites currently have three Bruins projected in the first round of the 2008 NBA Draft. Two of them, Westbrook and Collison, were lightly recruited until the middle of their senior years of high school. Nobody projected them as future NBA players as everyone has with Love. So, not only has playing for UCLA not hurt Love's NBA chances, but it has enhanced Westbrook's and Collison's by leaps and bounds.
I'm just amazed at the critical response Howland receives from fans, the media and others considering he has won three straight Pac-10 Conference championships and been to two Final Fours and the first two players from his original recruiting class are playing in the NBA. Honestly, besides Billy Donovan, is anybody even close right now to his recent accomplishments?
Last year, he wasn't supposed to be able to win without Farmar. Instead, Collison developed into a Pre-Season All-American this year. This year, losing Arron Afflalo, the heart of the team, was supposed to slow the Bruins, but Westbrook has stepped in and elevated himself to the lottery, according to some draft sites. Beyond winning the NCAA Championship, what more does Howland have to do to earn his respect among the media and fans?
Gottlieb isn't the only one. Billy Packer proves the game has passed him by every time he does a UCLA game. Dick Vitale has proven he does not understand either. Both, on occasions, criticize players for plays, saying they are out of position. However, they are playing Howland's defense. In the Arizona game. Budinger came off a curl cut; UCLA trails cutters and forces curls. Love was defending the screener. Love stepped up to hedge on the curl, as he is supposed to do, and they made a lob pass to Love's man. Packer went on and on about Love being out of position. But, that's how UCLA plays defense. It is the weakside help defender's responsibility to be there on the pass to Love's man. However, neither Packer nor Vitale have ever picked this up. They criticize the wrong player because they are either too lazy to watch tape and see how UCLA plays or just don't understand the game of basketball anymore.
I generally like Gottlieb. However, most UCLA fans claim he is anti-UCLA. After this article, it would be hard to prove otherwise.
First, there is the call. Lawrence Hill blocked Darren Collison's shot, but was called for a foul. Was it a bad call? Probably. Was it the only bad call? I doubt it. Furthermore, I recall Stanford winning at Arizona a couple weeks ago when Stanford benefitted from a terrible call on a Chase Budinger block attempt with sent Brook Lopez, I believe, to the line for the go ahead free throws. So, over the course of a season, things tend to balance out. If UCLA did not deserve the win last night because of the one call, as Gottlieb suggests ("The game only went to overtime on a terrible foul call on Lawrence Hill as he blocked Darren Collison's drive with 2.5 seconds remaining. In addition to the ludicrous call,"), then Stanford did not serve its win against Arizona.
Of course, in this case, the game went to overtime, so Stanford still had a shot. From the highlights, it looked like UCLA made some great plays down the stretch. According to Gottlieb, however, "UCLA looked OK, but got nothing from Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, Alfred Aboya, Lorenzo Mata-Real and Josh Shipp."
Gottlieb did give Collison credit for taking over the game and making shots. But, then he took a swipe at probable Pac-10 Player of the Year Kevin Love saying that NBA folks are not as high on level as college fans. His reasoning was his inability to explode over Brook Lopez, a seven-footer destined for the top of the lottery.
However, he saved his last swipe for Head Coach Ben Howland, when he said "And while Love can play more of a perimeter game at the next level, he may not have the green light to do so at UCLA." Love shoots threes in almost every game. UCLA runs plays to get him perimeter shots. To suggest he does not have the green light at UCLA is to ignore the entire season.
People want to criticize UCLA's offense. Last time I looked, UCLA was 4th in offensive efficiency in the nation. While everyone labels the Bruins as a defensive team, its offense ranks much higher in efficiency than its defense. People criticize Howland because the team wins ugly. However, they do not put up 100ppg because they do not run down court and jack the first open three-point shot. They use the shot clock and get good shots. With Collison at the point, they know they can create a good shot with seconds left on the shot clock, so they never panic. If their original set does not create the desired shot, they run a high on-ball screen and take what the defense leaves open, either a lane for Collison, Love popping, Mbah a Moute stepping in the lane, Westbrook cutting or Shipp spotting up for three.
People, and those recruiting against UCLA, try to sell recruits on this idea that playing for Howland will stunt your offensive growth. However, Phil Jackson said that Jordan Farmar entered the NBA prepared to play. This idea that UCLA cannot play offense, develop players or prepare players for the next level is probably the biggest misconception in college basketball right now. The draft sites currently have three Bruins projected in the first round of the 2008 NBA Draft. Two of them, Westbrook and Collison, were lightly recruited until the middle of their senior years of high school. Nobody projected them as future NBA players as everyone has with Love. So, not only has playing for UCLA not hurt Love's NBA chances, but it has enhanced Westbrook's and Collison's by leaps and bounds.
I'm just amazed at the critical response Howland receives from fans, the media and others considering he has won three straight Pac-10 Conference championships and been to two Final Fours and the first two players from his original recruiting class are playing in the NBA. Honestly, besides Billy Donovan, is anybody even close right now to his recent accomplishments?
Last year, he wasn't supposed to be able to win without Farmar. Instead, Collison developed into a Pre-Season All-American this year. This year, losing Arron Afflalo, the heart of the team, was supposed to slow the Bruins, but Westbrook has stepped in and elevated himself to the lottery, according to some draft sites. Beyond winning the NCAA Championship, what more does Howland have to do to earn his respect among the media and fans?
Gottlieb isn't the only one. Billy Packer proves the game has passed him by every time he does a UCLA game. Dick Vitale has proven he does not understand either. Both, on occasions, criticize players for plays, saying they are out of position. However, they are playing Howland's defense. In the Arizona game. Budinger came off a curl cut; UCLA trails cutters and forces curls. Love was defending the screener. Love stepped up to hedge on the curl, as he is supposed to do, and they made a lob pass to Love's man. Packer went on and on about Love being out of position. But, that's how UCLA plays defense. It is the weakside help defender's responsibility to be there on the pass to Love's man. However, neither Packer nor Vitale have ever picked this up. They criticize the wrong player because they are either too lazy to watch tape and see how UCLA plays or just don't understand the game of basketball anymore.
Monday, March 03, 2008
The Nuggets
Everyone assumes the Rockets will fall out of the play-offs because they will not be able to hold off the Warriors and the Nuggets. I do not understand why people expect so much from the Nuggets. Have you watched them play? The Denver vs. LA Clippers game Friday night should be example A for any NBA-hater.
Denver is supposed to be an elite team. They are supposed to be in the play-offs. They had two all-star starters and many thought a third merited inclusion. Many believe its coach is one of the best of his era. And, they play with the same type of ambivalence as the 2006 UConn Huskies.
I have always been an Iverson fan. Actually, I like several Nuggets. I just don't like them together. They are the most uninspiring team in the NBA, after the disaster franchises like the Knicks, Sonics and Grizzlies. Sure, they win about 60% of the time on talent alone, but I hate watching them play.
The Clippers vs Nuggets game was the reason I did not watch the NBA on Sunday. The game depressed me and made me realize that even in the most competitive conference race of my lifetime a completely listless team still has a chance to make the play-offs. It made me realize that there are not more than 10 teams in the NBA who I can watch, and most of them are not on TV enough, as the networks give us the completely unwatchable Heat, Nuggets or Bulls in nearly every other game.
I have no idea why the Nuggets are so uninspiring. However, talk about a team that needed whatever Ben Wallace still brings to the table. Or, a Shane Battier-type. I mean, they already have Eduardo Najera and that's not enough. The Warriors play a frenetic pace and take bad shots, but they play hard. They defend. They have a lot of defensive mis-matches, but they hustle and help and make it hard for the opponent. The Nuggets don't.
A trade for Ron Artest likely would have been combustible. But, the Nuggets needed to make that deal to alter its chemistry and bring someone with passion. I never though an AI team would look so passionless on the court, but they do. And, to me, there are few things worse in the NBA, than watching very talented teams coast.
I think the Rockets will hold onto a play-off spot as long as McGrady stays healthy. They play hard and play with a purpose and I think that is enough to overcome the ambivalent Nuggets.
Denver is supposed to be an elite team. They are supposed to be in the play-offs. They had two all-star starters and many thought a third merited inclusion. Many believe its coach is one of the best of his era. And, they play with the same type of ambivalence as the 2006 UConn Huskies.
I have always been an Iverson fan. Actually, I like several Nuggets. I just don't like them together. They are the most uninspiring team in the NBA, after the disaster franchises like the Knicks, Sonics and Grizzlies. Sure, they win about 60% of the time on talent alone, but I hate watching them play.
The Clippers vs Nuggets game was the reason I did not watch the NBA on Sunday. The game depressed me and made me realize that even in the most competitive conference race of my lifetime a completely listless team still has a chance to make the play-offs. It made me realize that there are not more than 10 teams in the NBA who I can watch, and most of them are not on TV enough, as the networks give us the completely unwatchable Heat, Nuggets or Bulls in nearly every other game.
I have no idea why the Nuggets are so uninspiring. However, talk about a team that needed whatever Ben Wallace still brings to the table. Or, a Shane Battier-type. I mean, they already have Eduardo Najera and that's not enough. The Warriors play a frenetic pace and take bad shots, but they play hard. They defend. They have a lot of defensive mis-matches, but they hustle and help and make it hard for the opponent. The Nuggets don't.
A trade for Ron Artest likely would have been combustible. But, the Nuggets needed to make that deal to alter its chemistry and bring someone with passion. I never though an AI team would look so passionless on the court, but they do. And, to me, there are few things worse in the NBA, than watching very talented teams coast.
I think the Rockets will hold onto a play-off spot as long as McGrady stays healthy. They play hard and play with a purpose and I think that is enough to overcome the ambivalent Nuggets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
