March 28, 2005

What a weekend of college basketball. On a scale from 0 to 10, three of the Regional Final games should be scored somewhere in the 9.6 to 9.9 range with the Wisconsin-North Carolina game getting about a 9.0. In any other year, the Wisconsin-UNC game would top Monday's water cooler discussion. This year, it may not even be mentioned because the other three games (each decided in overtime) featured unique drama that may never be repeated.

In the West Virginia-Louisville classic, the Mountaineers made 18 of 24 three point shots attempted in regulation time. I am fairly confident that I will never see that again in the tournament or the regular season. The only thing more amazing than the 18 of 24 is the fact that West Virginia did not win the game. Despite having star Francisco Garcia on the bench with five fouls and Taquan Dean in and out of the lineup with cramps, the Cardinals found a way to win. I am also doubtful that I will ever see a team win an NCAA Tournament game after trailing by 15 points with under four minutes left as Illinois did against Arizona in Saturday's second game. It was a bit of a collapse by Arizona, but the clutch play of Illinois was even more striking. Topping it all off was the spectacular double OT Kentucky-Michigan State game on Sunday. The game-tying three pointer by Steve Sparks as time expired in regulation will end up being a little less memorable because Kentucky eventually lost the game. Still, the combination of the ball bouncing several times off the rim before falling in and the controversy regarding Sparks' toe and the three point line will be etched in my memory for years to come. What a great weekend. This is exactly why they call it March Madness and why people cannot wait for the brackets and the games every year.

There were two other great games in the Regional Semifinal round: Villanova-North Carolina and Oklahoma State-Arizona. There was plenty of controversy surrounding the travelling call at the end of the Villanova-Carolina game. Was it actually a travelling violation? Yes. Should it have been called in that situation? Probably not. Would it have been called if it had been North Carolina with the ball? No way. Arizona-Oklahoma State may have been the most tightly contested game of the tournament. Unlike some of the games this weekend and the incredible Wake Forest-West Virginia game, this game was close from the opening tip. That matchup felt like a Final Four game.

In some ways, the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee is off the hook for its terrible job of seeding. First of all, each of the Regional Final games were highly competitive. At the very least, the Committee allowed for some great matchups, though that was probably just chance. Justice was served when 2 seed UConn (they should have been a 4 or 5 seed) lost in the second round. Louisville took their 4 seed in stride (they should have been a 2 seed at worst) and won the region anyway. However, the Selection Committee looked foolish when 4 seed Louisville was favored against 1 seed Washington and roughly 80% of the country picked Louisville, not Washington, to advance to the Elite Eight. Boston College made history by getting a 4 seed despite losing only four games all season (three to tournament teams plus Notre Dame). Had they lost to Illinois in the Sweet Sixteen, they would have had plenty to complain about. The fact that they lost to a 12 seed (Wisconsin-Milwaukee) is evidence that the seeding didn't cost them a trip to the Sweet Sixteen (as it probably did in 2001).

If anyone has a complaint, it is Oklahoma State. The Cowboys were arguably a 1 seed. At the very least, they should have been one of the two highest ranked 2 seeds (ahead of UConn and Kentucky). Since Illinois was the clear #1 team in the tournament, they should have been placed in the same region as the eighth best team in the tournament (ie. the weakest 2 seed). This was clearly not Oklahoma State. This meant that OSU faced a much tougher Sweet Sixteen opponent (Arizona) than they should have. This imbalance is largely how Michigan State wound up in the Final Four. The Spartans are playing great basketball, but I find it hard to believe that they would have beaten Oklahoma State (or Arizona for that matter) in the Regional Finals. By placing UConn as the 2 seed in the East, Carolina's path was made easier. The Tar Heels didn't have to beat a team seeded higher than 5 to reach the Final Four and they will play 5th seeded Michigan State in the National Semifinals on Saturday. Part of the problem, of course, is that the Committee refuses to make alternate scenarios based on Selection Sunday conference tournament finals outcomes in the major conferences. This may explain how Oklahoma State was rated lower than Wake Forest and Kentucky. UConn, of course, is an entirely different story.

Last week, I compiled a list of the ten things that I DON'T like about the NCAA Tournament or college basketball in general. Here's one more: I cannot stand the fact that a team trailing late in a game can foul the weakest free throw shooter prior to the inbounds pass. Not only does this enable the team on defense to choose who they want at the free throw line, but they can do it without any time ticking off of the clock. At the very least, a foul prior to the inbounds pass (with under one minute left in the game) should be an automatic two shot foul (not a 1 and 1). At most, the inbounding team should get one free throw and the ball. The team that is ahead late in the game should have to make their free throws to win, but the trailing team should be required to chase down the ball to make the foul. Fouling before the ball is passed is simply too easy for the defense.

Last week I said the no 30 second timeout lasted less than two minutes. Make that four minutes in the Regional Finals. CBS is absolutely obnoxious.

I am little tired of hearing how great the Big Ten is doing in this year's tournament. Yes, they have been a pleasant surprise, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. First, Wisconsin's run to the Elite Eight was nothing to boast about. Before facing North Carolina on Sunday, the Badgers beat 11 seed and bubble team Northern Iowa (they couldn't even reach the semifinals of the Missouri Valley Conference tournament), a 14 seed (Bucknell) and a 10 seed (North Carolina State). Michigan State, to their credit, defeated the 1 and 2 seeds in their region after taking advantage of Syracuse's first round departure. However, Duke and Kentucky were both heavily overrated this season. At this point, Duke and Kentucky could have Jackson Five as a starting lineup and still be in the preseason top five. Illinois wasn't tested until the Regional Finals. After beating a 16, 9 and a 12 seed in the first three rounds, the Illini were teetering on the brink of losing by 20 to Arizona in the Regional Final before their incredible resurrection (it was Easter weekend after all). I agree that the Pac Ten was underrated this season, but by nearly as much as the media has claimed over the past week.

I certainly won't shed any tears over the fact that Kentucky will not be participating in the Final Four this season, but I will miss seeing Ashley Judd in the crowd. Unlike most celeb "fans" Judd actually knows a little something about the game of basketball, shows up for regular season games and has even written a few guest columns on the Cats for the Lexington Herald-Leader. That reminds me, could someone from Illinois, Michigan State, Louisville or North Carolina please mail Jessica Alba a diploma and some Final Four tickets?

For the first time since 2000, the Final Four will not feature a 2 or a 3 seed. Louisville is the first 4 seed to reach the Final Four since 1999 (Ohio State). Though 2005 marked the 25th consecutive year that a 1 seed has reached the Final Four, it was also the sixth consecutive year that no more than two 1 seeds reached the National Semifinals. Louisville and Michigan State have their work cut out for them. Only once since 1988 has a team seeded higher than 3 won the National Championship (Arizona, a 4 seed in 1997).

Final Four Participants since 1985 (National Champion in boldface)

March 21, 2005

Congratulations to the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Panthers. They played a great game on Saturday against Boston College. I don't think Milwaukee is a better team than BC, but they were certainly the better team on Saturday. They mixed torrid three point shooting with good dribble penetration and had an unbelievable day at the free throw line (95% before an inconsequential miss at the end). I would love to see Bruce Pearl's gutsy team in the Final Four, but that will be almost impossible given the fact that they are in the toughest region in recent memory (Illinois, Oklahoma State and Arizona remain in that region).

For BC, it was a better ending. It was the third time in five years that the Eagles were in position to advance to the Sweet Sixteen with a minute left only to see things unravel. The Eagles were one of the five best teams in the country for 25 games, but they are clearly not one of the sixteen best now. They lost their "mojo" in a home game against Pitt on the final Monday of the regular season and never regained it. Every good team (except perhaps Illinois) goes through a three or four game slump at some point during the season. BC chose to do it at the most inopportune time. But, Al Skinner's program is on the rise (115 wins in five years). They return four starters next year and the fifth is soon-to-be Sophomore Sean Williams, who could be a dominant force in the ACC on both sides of the ball. Steve Hailey will return as the backup point guard. If the Eagles can find a couple more role players to step up and replace the departing Jermaine Watson and Nate Doornekamp, there is no reason why they shouldn't be even better next season.

As a graduate, I am very excited about Boston College joining the ACC. Clearly, the ACC is a better academic fit for Boston College even if the geography doesn't make a lot of sense. Watching the incredible ACC basketball games this season, I couldn't help but be excited about being a part of it. The challenge for Al Skinner and the players will be to adapt to the ACC style of play (less physical, faster pace). At one point, the prospect of leaving the Big East after 25 years was bittersweet, but the classless and infantile behavior of some of the people at the remaining Big East schools (particularly the University of Connecticut) eliminated any positive feelings I once had for the Big East Conference. I think in time the positive memories will return. For now, I can't get beyond the lawsuits, the double-standard (Miami and Virginia Tech were not criticized for leaving), the hypocrisy (most of these schools would have jumped ship had they been invited and they had no problem looting Conference USA), the unprofessional behavior of Commissioner Mike "I treat Notre Dame better than the schools in my conference" Tranghese, the officiating vendetta (for football in '03 and basketball in the second half of this season), the whining from Rutgers (despite the fact that their pathetic football program helped drive Miami out), the travel fiasco in Syracuse during the 2003 football season and of course the unrelenting blather from the stunningly arrogant Jim Calhoun.

Let me first say that I am a big fan of ESPN.com's Sports Guy, Bill Simmons. I've often provided links to his articles on the Red Sox, Patriots and Celtics and will continue to do so. His ramblings are very amusing (though I could do without the 500 words a month on Beverly Hills 90210 and The OC). His animated cartoons are hysterical. However, I could not let the week pass without commenting on The Sport Guy's March Madness Diary, which included a few snippy comments about Boston College. Bill Simmons, in case you didn't know, is a graduate of Holy Cross. Simmons and Dan Shaughnessy have become the poster children for "Holy Cross Grad Boston College Envy." Here's a sample.

Simmons: "It's time for my favorite NCAA tradition ... that's right, rooting against BC!"

I have no problem with this. The students and grads at every Boston area school root against BC. Having teams to root against is part of the fun of being a sports fan.

Simmons: "Jermaine Watson pulls off a three-point play to put BC up by seven. Out of anyone in this tournament who jumped out of a second-story plate glass window to escape armed assailants last weekend, he's playing the best."

I found this comment very amusing.

Simmons: "Looks like BC is going to beat Penn by 20. On the bright side for Penn grads, they can take out their anger on the BC grads working under them."

Okay, this would be an excellent comeback from a Penn grad. Coming from a Holy Cross grad, it is utterly ridiculous. This is the equivalent of a Clippers fan making fun the Lakers for losing to the Spurs. Simmons clearly has a bone to pick with BC. To borrow a Sports Guy phrase, I wish I could bet on things like "Bill Simmons was once rejected for admission to Boston College." Think about it, would a maniacal sports fan like Bill Simmons go to a school with no Division 1-A football and a basketball program that hasn't won a tournament game since they used peach baskets for hoops if he could have gone to BC?

Simmons: "By the way, Raftery just mentioned that the Ohio coach learned his craft as a longtime assistant of BC coach Al Skinner. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?"

Tearing apart Al Skinner is nothing new for Simmons. He's often referred to Skinner as a poor coach. I might say that this opinion is moronic, but that would be an insult to morons. Al Skinner has won 115 games in the past five years (an average of 23 per year) without a recruiting class that even ranks in the top 50. BC has been eliminated in the second round of the NCAA Tournament in three of the past five years. With UConn's priority seeding, I'm sure they would have been in the Sweet Sixteen and maybe beyond a couple of times. Skinner reached the NCAA Tournament four times while at Rhode Island. Who knows, maybe Simmons received a rejection letter from URI as well.

Simmons: "Three great things about the Charlotte/NC State game: It's taking place in Worcester (where I spent four years in college); there's a "Holy Cross" logo on the court; and the great Gus Johnson is announcing."

The greatest accomplishment for Holy Cross is having its logo printed on the court for an NCAA Tournament game. Doesn't that say it all? For the record, I have nothing against Holy Cross. It is a fine school. I wouldn't be writing this if Simmons could keep his envy to himself.

Has anyone ever seen Gonzaga's Adam Morrison and Randall "Pink" Floyd from Dazed and Confused in the same place at the same time?

I watched a little of the Congressional Steroid Hearings last week during basketball timeouts. I was happy that the Congressmen put the players, the commish and the player's union on the spot. They accurately pointed out how ludicrous it is that baseball players have a five strikes policy and that the fine for a first offense ($10,000) is, for the average baseball player, the equivalent of a $25 fine for an average American. At the same time, I found it a bit hypocritcal for the members of the U.S. Congress to be lecturing about the special treatment of baseball players. Does anyone get more special treatment than politicians?

During the Big East Tournament, West Virginia fans were chanting "ACC" late in their game with BC. They repeated the same chant in the NCAA Tournament (WV played in the same venue as BC). Is this supposed to be an insult? Is the best they can come up with? Would Yankee fans chant "2004" to Red Sox fans? Would Laker fans chant "Shaq" when the Miami Heat are in town? I wonder if West Virginia held a statewide contest and the "ACC" chant was the winning entry.

One of the great things about the NCAA Tournament is that no one rushes the court after games. A good court rush is fine once in a great while (maybe if you beat Duke for the first time in 20 years) but this year it seemed like the students were rushing the court after every home win. The Villanova fans rushed the court after beating Pittsburgh. Clemson fans rushed the court after beating Virginia Tech. What does it say about your program if the student body rushes the court after beating Virginia Tech in basketball?

I was wondering: if there existed just one Women's NIT pool for the entire country, would more than 20 people enter? Attendance for the first two rounds of the women's NCAA tourney is putrid. I can't imagine what it's like for the Women's NIT. In the box score next to "Attendance" do they just list everyone's name?

In case you are wagering, the over/under on the UConn basketball program going on probation is 2006.

I love college basketball and March Madness, but I do have some criticisms. Here are Ten things I hate about the NCAA Tournament or College Basketball (in no particular order).

1. Billy Packer -- I think it is time for Packer to be inducted into the "Duke Suck-up" Hall of Fame. CBS should not allow him to do color commentary for Duke. It is absolutely painful to listen to him during Duke telecasts.



2. Timeouts Called While Players are Sprawling Out of Bounds -- It is insanity that a team can call a timeout while the player with the ball is in midair three feet out of bounds. Both Gonzaga and Boston College saw their tournament hopes officially die on a play like this. Both were down one possession in the final minute when the opponent was granted a TO while falling out of bounds. Instead of having the ball, Gonzaga and BC were forced to begin fouling and their seasons were over. A player should at least have two feet in bounds in order for a timeout to be called.



3. Thirty Second Timeouts -- Thirty second timeouts would be fine except for the fact that all of them last for at least two minutes. A thirty second timeout should not be an excuse to show the Spring Break Shark Attack commercial for the 900th time. And while we're on the subject ...



4. Commercials for Shows that No Self-Respecting College Hoops Fan Would Watch -- For example, Oh, I don't know ... SPRING BREAK SHARK ATTACK!



5. Free Throws After TV Timeouts (Instead of Before) -- In the past, the TV timeout would come at four minute intervals following a stoppage in play (a non-shooting foul, ball out of bounds, etc) except in cases where a player was headed to the free throw line. Prior to this year, a player would get his free throws before the TV timeout. Now the free throws come after the TV timeout, probably because the networks were tired of guys missing their final free throw attempt and thus temporarily postponing the commercial break. This change is terrible for fans and I'd guess even worse for the player who has to wait four minutes before taking his shots at the foul line. It certainly appears that the NCAA is pandering to the networks at the expense of the players and the flow of the game.



6. The Three Point Line -- Actually, I love the three-pointer. It is the second greatest invention in the history of college basketball (the shot clock being the greatest invention - don't get me started on the "four corners" offense). But, the line needs to be moved back another foot or two from the basket. Too many one-dimensional teams are winning simply by heaving up 20 to 25 three pointers per game. The three-point shot is great, but it's just a little too easy from 19'9".



7. 1 vs 16 Games -- Number 16 seeds are now 0-84 against 1 seeds. We've seen in the past (and last week) that the 13 and 14 seeds have been very competitive. They have won nearly 20% of the time and have given the higher seeds a good game more often than not. The 15 seeds are 4-80 against the 2s but at least they have a chance to win. The 16 seeds have virtually no chance to win and they normally lose by 20-30 points. This means that the first round is essentially a bye for the 1 seeds, which wouldn't be as much of a problem if the 1 seeds were earned, rather than bestowed by some biased committee. I would love to see the tournament expand to 68 teams with four play-in games. This would increase the competitiveness not only of the 1 vs 16 game, but all of the first round games featuring the top four seeds. The bubble teams would become 13 seeds, the current 13 and 14 seeds would become 14 and 15 seeds and the current 15 and 16 seeds would be playing each other for the right to challenge the 1 seed in the first round. This would mean more upsets and more good games. It would also give four additional bubble teams a chance to play in the tournament. I don't think it would have been the end of the world to have Notre Dame, Maryland and St. Joe's added to this year's field.



8. Players With Ponytails -- This is men's basketball, not tennis, figure skating or the Antonio Banderas Lookalike World Series.



9. The Seed Justification Crowd -- The fact that Kansas was upset in the first round does not justify the fact that they were given a lower seed than UConn. If Louisville had lost in the second round, it would not have allowed the Committee to justify the fact that they were given a 4 seed. BC's loss to Milwaukee-Wisconsin does not mean that they should not have been given a 3 seed or better. Anything can happen on any given day in the tournament. Some teams have come very close to losing in the first or second round and won the championship later on. For all we know, Kansas may have won it all had they survived Bucknell. Seeding should be based on what a team has accomplished during the season, not on the hunches of the Selection Committee. I love both college and professional sports but this is one area where pro sports comes out ahead. If the Patriots finish 12-4 and the Jets finish 11-5 this year, I don't have to worry about the Jets getting a better seed in the NFL Playoffs.



10. The NCAA Selection Committee -- Normally, I have a problem with the way the Committee handles the bubble teams. This year, my issue was the awful job in seeding. I had my say on this subject in the March 16th Notes if you are interested.

March 16, 2005

We are now on the eve of not only March Madness (sorry, Oakland, I don't count the game on Tuesday) but also St. Patrick's Day. Wow. Two great events in one day, especially if you are a huge college basketball fan, Irish or a beer distributor. After three days of staring at brackets, I am more than ready for the games to begin. The basketball pools are taking their toll on me. Since Sunday, I've had the compulsive desire to seed everything. At lunch, #1 seed Pepsi had no trouble with #16 Mr. Pibb but the #12 turkey sandwich upset the #5 seed, steak and cheese. Anyway, here are some notes. They are brief because I have been spending most of my time with the aforementioned brackets.

I think the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee needs to rename itself the "NCAA Tournament / Screw Boston College" Committee. BC finished 24-4, won the regular season Big East title and was in the top ten for most of January and February. The Eagles' four losses came against three NCAA Tournament teams and Notre Dame, one of the last teams left out. The Eagles were not only "rewarded" with a #4 seed but they were the lowest of the #4 seeds because they were placed in the same bracket with #1 Illinois. If BC survives the first two rounds, they will almost certainly play the Illini in Chicago. This is not the first time that the Selection Committee has treated BC unfairly. In 2003, BC won their Big East division (there were two divisions then) with a 10-6 record, won 7 of their last 10 games, were 9-4 on the road and had a respectable RPI of 49. They were left out of the tournament in favor of Alabama (7-9 in the SEC, 1-8 on the road, 4-6 in their last 10 games) and NC State (3-7 on the road, 5-5 in their last 10 and LOST TO BC AT HOME!!). In 2001, BC cruised to the Big East regular season and conference tournament championship while finishing 26-4. They were given a 3 seed that year and lost to red-hot USC in the second round. During the past five years, there have been 26 teams in the major conferences (ACC, Big East, Big XII, Big Ten, SEC and Pac Ten) that have finished the season with between 3 and 5 losses overall. A total of 22 of those 26 were rewarded with either a #1 or a #2 seed. The other four were: BC in 2001 (4 losses/3 seed), Pitt in 2002 (5 losses/3 seed), Pitt in 2004 (4 losses/3 seed) and of course BC in 2005 (4 losses/4 seed).

On the opposite side of the coin is UConn, a team that somehow managed to get a #2 seed despite having seven losses overall and getting tattooed by Syracuse in the Big East semis (it was not nearly as close as the score indicates). BC won the Big East regular season title and Syracuse won the tournament, yet both were given #4 seeds while UConn was given a #2. It doesn't take a scholar of college basketball to know that either money or favors had to have changed hands to make that happen. Selection Committee Chairman Bob Bowlsby summed it up when he said on national television that UConn was the #2 seed because they wanted to give the Big East Regular Season Champion at least a #2 seed. The only problem is that UConn wasn't the champion (BC and UConn both finished 13-3 but BC was the #1 seed in the league tournament because they beat UConn on the road in their only meeting). I guess the Committee was using the "who sells more jerseys" tiebreaker that they are so fond of. Even if one considers BC and UConn co-champions, why wouldn't Bowlsby's rule apply to BC? The other part of this equation is that UConn was set up with first and second round games in Worcester, Mass, just a short bus ride from their campus. It's almost as if Jim Calhoun set up the brackets himself.

If BC's seeding was ridiculous, I can't even come up with a word to describe Louisville's #4 seed. The Cardinals finished 27-4, won the regular season and conference tournament and are ranked 4th in the nation. Louisville fans had every right to think that they had an outside chance for a #1 seed. From fourth in the country to fourth in the Albuquerque bracket. It couldn't make less sense.

Best Name: I'm really happy that George Washington made it into the NCAA Tournament because I love hearing the name Pops Mensah-Bonsu. There's something about a 21-year-old guy named "Pops" that makes me laugh.

That reminds me of another bracket rule. Don't pick teams whose star players have hyphenated names.

Best Chance for a First Round Upset by a Team Seeded Higher than 12: Utah State over Arizona. The Aggies shoot the ball very well (they lead tournament teams in Points Per Shot) and play solid defense (they allow 57.7 points per game). They have won eight of their last ten games and beat Utah earlier this season. They played #2 seed Kansas very tough (64-61) two years ago. Arizona is not a great defensive team and that makes them susceptible to the upset.

First #1 Seed to Lose: Washington. I think Washington will lose in the second round if they have to face Pittsburgh. If not, they could face Louisville in the Sweet Sixteen. If that happens, the 4 seed may actually be favored to beat the 1 seed. I can't imagine that has ever happened.

Fatigue Factor: West Virginia, Syracuse, Georgia Tech, NC State, Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin, Iowa, Texas Tech and Louisville all played three or more games last week in their conference tournaments. That could take it's toll in the second round, especially for the teams that aren't as deep on the bench. Duke, Washington, Kentucky, Oklahoma State and Illinois also played three times last week, but as #1 and #2 seeds, their second round matchups will not be quite as formidable.

Good luck with your brackets and Happy St. Patrick's Day.