The High School to College Jump Debate… Righting the Ship

March 1, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

The NBA may be peaking in terms of popularity right now, but make no mistakes – it is an organization in very serious trouble.

The league has been hijacked by players, it is hemorrhaging money, and now the limited population of truly talented athletes in the league have all decided to migrate east, creating what is sure to be an extremely top-heavy NBA.

The league is enjoying a spike in popularity, but how long can that popularity be sustained? There are only so many superstars that are worth the media attention lavished on LeBron James and Dwayne Wade during this past off-season. Now that Carmelo Anthony has signed on with the Knicks, the only thing left for the talking heads in the sports world to talk about is, “Where will Chris Paul sign?

Things just aren’t like they used to be.

Comparisons to the “good ol’ days” often point to the fact that the league’s biggest stars from back in the day would have never teamed up to play on the same team. The notion that Magic would have taken his talents to Boston to team up with Byrd, or that Jordan would ever put on a Knicks uniform to share the same court with Ewing is just absurd. These were hyper-competitive athletes who wanted to share none of the glory.

There has clearly been a change in mentality between the stars of yesterday, and those of today. It has completely altered the climate of professional basketball.

That change has been the talent level of the B and C class talent.

Superstar talent may be comparable to the golden days, but supporting casts in the NBA are a shell of what they once were.

NBA Lite

Thanks to the miracle of NBA expansion, the league has officially reached its saturation point. The league has outgrown the boundaries that would have allowed it to remain competitive, and the limited pool of real NBA-worthy talent is not enough to stock the ocean that is the current NBA.

Talent is watered down to such a point now that the current NBA draft format (which is only two rounds to begin with) is completely irrelevant. With the exception of a small handful of lottery players, most of the draft class from each new season spends the first two to three years of their professional careers either in the D-league, or playing foreign ball. It is not until after some REAL development has taken place that a player (no matter how promising they might be) will actually get an opportunity to test their mettle in the big leagues.

Where in previous years a team might have three or four role players with genuine talent, the teams of today are lucky if they have one guy who can truly hold his own in helping to hoist the elite up.

So who can blame the athletes with REAL talent from wanting to team up?

Guys like LeBron James are no longer expected just to be great players, they are expected to act as mentors and trainers who must take on the responsibility of developing those players around them. They cannot focus solely on their game, because they have to make everyone else better.

The Cleveland Cavaliers and the Denver Nuggets are the perfect example of this fact. Before their superstar saviors came to town, they were the bottom-feeders of the league. While those superstar saviors were in town, they realized elevated levels of success, but nothing truly satisfying. Now that those superstar saviors are gone, they have sunk back into the depths of irrelevance.

They enjoyed a boost in winning percentages because they had a difference-maker on the court, but that boost was short-lived because those difference-makers didn’t want to have to do everything. While they want to be the best guy on the court, they don’t want to be the ONLY guy on the court. So they have sacrificed their shot at EXCLUSIVE glory so they can at least have a shot at glory.

Fixing the problem

The good news for NBA fans is that the upcoming CBA expiration provides the perfect opportunity to fix the league’s problems. Who would have thought that inspiration for that fix would come from the same organization blamed for the overhyped condition of sports in America today – ESPN?

Last weekend, analysts Jay Bilas and Hubert Davis, following one of their broadcasts, discussed a recommendation that was so well received that Michigan State’s head coach, Tom Izzo, has decided to propose it to the National Association of Basketball Coaches.

The recommendation was that the NBA should implement an ultimatum of sorts to prospective NBA draft entrants. For those who feel they are truly ready to make the immediate leap from high school into the pros, they deserve that opportunity. The one-year waiting period will be waived, and they can follow in the footsteps of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, and several others who have gone on to superstardom.

For those who are not ready, though, they will have to commit to a THREE-year (as opposed to one) stint in college.

This is actually a brilliant proposal that would boost the level of play, not only for the NBA, but also for college basketball (although the benefits for the NCAA are irrelevant to the topic at hand today).

For starters, this would actually not be an unprecedented policy. In fact, it is exactly the same policy held by the MLB. Although the NFL does not offer an immediate entry into their ranks, they still require a three-year wait.

The greatest benefit that the NBA would realize is that it would no longer have to assume the responsibility of developing athletes who are SUPPOSED to be NBA-caliber talent. As evidenced by the current state of talent in the league, it is obvious that the league stinks at developing talent anyway. Why not let players grow-up in college, at someone else’s expense, so that when they DO join the professional ranks they do so as matured athletes who are ready to hit the ground running.

This elevation in entry-level talent coming into the league would help boost the level of competition across the board. Teams would be able to populate their rosters with a better class of athlete, and the support-starved stars of the game today will feel less pressure to take on the role of team savior.

The end result is that all of the teams in the league would get better. The depth of talent from the five starters to the pine-riders and the D-leaguers would make the game more competitive, and stars of the league might be more compelled to resume the competitive nature of their predecessors, staying put and striving for individual glory, rather than a shared piece of the ultimate prize.

This proposal, which is now being championed by one of the most respected coaches in basketball today, is one that will benefit the entire game of basketball. It will make the players better, and it will make the league better.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Best Coach Without A Title Debate… A Lifetime of Jazz, Concluded by the Blues

February 24, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

After 23 years, Jerry Sloan walked away from the Utah Jazz. Mid-season.

After 23 years, Sloan intimated that he just didn’t have the energy or the desire anymore, and that he knew “this was the time to move on.”

Translation – Jerry Sloan QUIT.

I don’t care that he coached the same team for 23 years, or that he won 1221 games. I also don’t care about his two Western Conference championships, or the Hall of Famers he’s coached, and I don’t care that he is one of only three coaches in the NBA with at least 15 consecutive winning seasons.

I don’t care about those things because none of them matter now. Why? Because Jerry Sloan is a quitter.

So tell me please, how can he be the greatest coach in sports without a title?

It is not like he left in the off-season, or even at the end of a contract because he was tired and ready for his golden years. There are no health issues that anyone is aware of, and no personal matters to attend to. He just decided at the end of a basketball game in the middle of the season that he was taking his things and going home.

He gave no warning, left his organization with no backup plan, and just walked away.

It may be harsh to call Sloan a quitter, but that’s exactly what I am doing, and I’ll say it again – Jerry Sloan cannot be the greatest head coach across sports without a title. Because he is a quitter.

Optimist Prime is going to portray Sloan as a legendary coach with a legendary tenure in the Jazz organization. But the only REAL accomplishment he ever showed was an ability to not get fired.

Owning the longest coaching tenure in sports with the same team does not make you great. In that “illustrious” tenure, which spanned 26 total seasons… the one that Optimist Prime will be raving about… how many times did he even SNIFF a shot at a championship? Twice, that’s it.

Think about the great AFC coaches of the NFL during the 1980s and 1990s. They were tasked with coaching in an inferior conference, loaded with inferior talent, against an NFC group that was better funded, and better skilled.

I’m talking about guys like Dan Reeves, and Marv Levy.

No matter how great of these coaches might have been, they simply did not have the weaponry to stack up against teams led by Joe Montana and Jerry Rice, or Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, and Michael Irvin.

But these were great coaches, and they had more comparative success in their shortened tenures than Sloan did over a much longer career.

Reeves coached for only 23 years, but won his conference four times. Levy managed to win four conference championships in only 17 seasons. Once again, Sloan boasts only two conference championships over a 26 year career.

While Sloan’s regular season W-L record is impressive, his playoff presence left much more to be desired. Over his career, he won only 98 playoff games, compared to 104 losses, for a playoff win percentage of .485 (that’s a losing record). Compare that to Reeves (.550), or Levy (.579).

If Sloan isn’t the greatest coach across sports without a title, is he at least the greatest coach in NBA history without a title? Once more, the answer is “no.”

That claim should belong to Don Nelson, who retired last season after 31 years in the NBA.

Nelson, a three-time NBA coach of the year, has won more games as an NBA coach than anyone else in league history. That puts him ahead of Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, Red Auerbach, and every other “great” to have coached in the league as far as wins go. But for all those victories, Nelson does not have a championship to his credit.

In fact, Jerry Sloan was never even the greatest coach in the league for a single season during his tenure, having never been recognized as Coach of the Year. While guys like Nelson, or even Mike Fratello (also without a championship) have managed to at least garner honors as the top coach within a single season, Sloan falls short of the mark yet again.

Make no mistake, Jerry Sloan had an impressive coaching career. But his legacy, highlighted only by endurance, and marred greatly by the manner in which he left the game, falls far short of the standards set by so many other great coaches out there never fortunate enough to win a championship.

I’m sorry, Mr. Sloan, but this is one more title you have failed to clinch.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Marginalizing Humanity Debate Verdict

February 24, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The advancement of “baseball science” has brought us tremendous development in the sport.

Thanks to a greater understanding of the human body, training and dietary regimens have evolved, radically shifting the makeup of the “modern” baseball player. You need only compare photos of Babe Ruth and Albert Pujols to see the evidence of that reality.

Likewise, technological advances have given us access to the instant replay.

With each of these new developments, the quality of the baseball product is enhanced. The game itself is improved, as is the fan experience.

But for every new development that advances the game of baseball, there is also a baseball fad that makes an appearance. Unlike the great advances in baseball science, though, these fads over time either fail to add any real value to the game, or in some cases, actually detract from the great experience of America’s Pastime.

The use of performance enhancing drugs falls under this classification, as does the decision to use the All-Star Game as the determinant for which team in the World Series will get home field advantage (in my opinion). These are changes that were adopted by the game in an attempt to maintain relevance, but over the long-term failed to add any real value to the product of baseball.

Which brings us to the issue at hand today.

One of the hot trends in baseball over the past decade has been the growing emphasis that many baseball franchises are placing on highly complex, advanced statistical analysis. Sabermetrics, for example, is no longer referred to anecdotally. Instead, it is perceived as a viable tool in analyzing past results to project future performance.

Franchises are not just casually using these advanced analytical tools, either. The Boston Red Sox hired Bill James, the father of Sabermetrics, as a Senior Advisor for their organization nearly ten years ago. And more recently 17 different MLB franchises purchased Bloomberg’s Scouting Tools, which they tend to employ in a similar manner.

The statistical analysis of baseball performance has developed into a very real aspect of the game, and is now heavily ingrained as a viable practice in the front offices of more than half of Major League Baseball.

But are these advanced analytical tools the next great advancement in baseball science, or are they just the latest baseball fad?

Sports Geek is of the opinion that Sabermetrics and the like are the next step in the evolution of baseball. According to Sports Geek, these new analytical processes and tools are a tremendous advancement in the game, because they provide franchises with an opportunity to validate decisions that were previously based almost entirely on hunches.

There is a great deal of truth behind that assessment.

Like instant replay, these analytical tools seek to eliminate the subjectivity of human interpretation, and the fallibility that comes with that judgment. It seeks instead to replace that subjectivity with the objectivity of measurable or quantifiable facts. Rather than rely on a human being to process information through the filters of their own perception, which leaves room for error, these tools provide franchises with unbiased data which can be used to govern decision making.

The negative side of that, though, is the fact that there are certain aspects of the game which cannot be measured.

As Loyal Homer discusses, there are times when objectivity is not possible, because the circumstances within each game-time scenario are unique. There is no number to quantify the health of a player, or the personal stress he might be under, thanks to a problem at home, when he steps up to the plate.

Furthermore, it can be difficult (if not impossible) to substitute real experience that can only be gained over a lifetime of direct observation and analysis. A computer has not spent months or years developing relationships with players, and a math formula cannot tell you the attitude of your left fielder.

But despite those objections from Loyal Homer, I tend to agree with Sports Geek in his assessment that there is real value behind these measurements, and that they are the next step in the natural progression of baseball.

These tools are not intended to eventually replace the decision-making process for a manager or the front office. Baseball is a situational game, and the chess match that plays out on the field can never be directed by a set of hard and fast rules. Loyal Homer is correct in that assessment. But that fact does not automatically negate the value of Sabermetrics. To the contrary, it actually validates the need for it.

Managers will always be required to make spur-of-the-moment decisions, based on the context of each unique situation. Sabermetrics will not replace the decision-making process for those managers, but it is a greater set of tools that can help guide the manager to a decision they can feel confident will provide them with the best opportunity for success.

Sabermetrics and Bloomberg’s Scouting Tools are not a series of if-then statements. They do not provide managers with a crib-sheet on standard operating procedures. They help to arm that manager with the best possible information, thus equipping them to make the best possible decision.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Marginalizing Humanity Debate

February 22, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The hiring of famed baseball historian and statistician, Bill James, as a senior baseball advisor for the Boston Red Sox in 2002 marked the start of a philosophical shift throughout baseball.

Prior to James’ hiring, baseball teams relied almost exclusively on talent scouts in order to determine the best possible players available to them at each position on the field. The scouts would provide a subjective analysis of how each observed player performed, and that analysis would be used to project the player’s likely future success within their organization.

James saw things a little differently.

In the 1980s, James gained notoriety in the baseball world as one of its most respected historians and statisticians. He began an annual publication titled “The Bill James Baseball Abstract,” which sought to analyze baseball performance through objective, statistical data, rather than through the subjective assessments of talent scouts.

And while he never intended for his statistical analysis, which he coined ‘Sabermetrics’, to actually replace scouting, his appointment by the Boston Red Sox indicated that the baseball world might be ready to do just that.

Since then, the emphasis on advanced statistical analysis has skyrocketed.

Today, there isn’t a single discussion about Cy Young contenders, MVP Candidates, or Minor League prospects that doesn’t include at least a mention of Sabermetrics. In the great Albert Pujols free-agency saga, the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) statistic is one that has been used to discuss just how valuable he has been to the St. Louis Cardinals organization. And now, 17 different Major League teams have bought Bloomberg Scouting Tools, a new sports analytics service that will surely be put to use in at least supplementing the scouting programs of these 17 franchises.

With so many different franchises now tying their organization’s future viability directly into the new science of sports analytics, what does this mean for scouting?

Has too much value been placed on stats, at the expense of the good old fashioned gut feel of scouting a player?

According to Loyal Homer, statistics cannot match human instinct, and there are some things that just cannot be quantified. On the other hand, Sports Geek argues that the validity of these new statistics cannot be denied, and they are proven more meaningful every day.

Until now, scouting was always perceived as an inexact science. Have the number-crunchers found a way to change that?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Marginalizing Humanity Debate… The Numbers Sometimes Lie

February 22, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Sports Geek.

We live in the age where there is a world of information that is always just a click away. You can go online and get any type of statistical data you want to make the best possible decision. This certainly applies to the world of sports. Between sabermetrics and other sports analytical data, there is just a plethora of info for stats nerds like Sports Geek to look at whenever they see fit.

But I’m a little more old school. I don’t totally dismiss statistics, but I’m a big believer in what I see with my own eyes. I believe my eyes more than what is on the back of a player’s baseball card or, perhaps more in tune with today’s society, what’s on his Wikipedia page. I tend to go with my gut feeling on a player.

I’m certainly not a scout, but like all five of the writers here at The Sports Debates, I’m a fan and I’ve watched a lot of games over the years. My viewing experiences at games and on television have influenced my opinions on certain players. Even this past weekend, watching a region high school basketball tournament at my high school, I found myself developing “gut feelings” on certain players. I knew what some of the statistics were regarding these players, but I disregarded them because it was a total different set of circumstances. The games were played in a tough environment with 1,200 screaming fans. A championship was on the line. Pressure that these kids hadn’t experienced was now being experienced and that certainly played a factor. It’s only natural, especially on the high school level.

New Atlanta Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez is following perhaps the king of “I had a hunch ______ was going to get a big hit tonight” in Bobby Cox (see one example). Cox never was one to rely on statistics all that much when managing a game, and those “hunches” of his helped him win 2,504 games as a manager. Gonzalez has said that while he does pay attention to all the information that is out there, he tends to go with his instincts and his gut feeling when making baseball decisions. And those instincts and gut feelings come from his own observations and from conversations with the scouts who have seen the players develop over the years.

As a fan, sometimes I have a gut feeling on who is going to win the game before the game starts, despite what the spread is. If you are a fan, you know what that’s like. There are intangibles that no statistical data system can measure. Granted, that gut feeling doesn’t always turn out to be right, but it certainly weighs heavily in making a decision. Gamblers in Las Vegas make a lot of money going with that gut feeling when betting on sporting events. Many people had gut feelings that the Green Bay Packers would win their first two playoff games on the road as underdogs this past post-season based on how well they were playing coming into the post-season. They backed that up with two more wins and won a Super Bowl championship. It’s the same feeling a coach or manager gets when making decisions over the course of a game. They make decisions based on keen observations by their trained eyes, not by statistical data.

Sometimes, I believe that less is more and that too much information can cloud one’s judgment. Using the likes of sabermetrics is one of those times. Numbers can sometimes be deceiving. But in this case, what you see and what you feel is not deceiving.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Cardinals-Pujols Negotiation Debate… Pujols Threatens to Put St. Louis on Lockdown

February 17, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

This whole Albert Pujols situation really exploded in the past two weeks or so. We’ve known for awhile that his contract was set to expire of the end of the 2011 season, and that he was going to be a wealthy man. We all just assumed that he would either reach an extension with the St. Louis Cardinals and there would be a general consensus that it would take place. That doesn’t appear to be the case after the passing of Wednesday’s self-imposed deadline to reach a new deal. So who is to blame? I think this is an easy one. It’s Albert Pujols. He’s being outrageous, actually.

I have a lot of respect for Albert Pujols. I was in attendance when he hit his 150th home run on a Sunday night in Atlanta nearly seven years ago. Until this point, he’s been worshiped in a city that worships baseball. But the fans in the Gateway City, as St. Louis is often referred to, know their baseball and I have a feeling those knowledgeable and passionate fans could turn on him. Who could blame them?

According to sources, St. Louis had offered Pujols an eight year contract that was believed to be worth in excess of $200M with a possible stake in ownership once his playing days are completed. With Pujols, currently 31 years old, the life of that type of deal would take him to the age of 39, and presumably, to the near-end of his career. As a middle-class American who earns considerably less than my sports idols, how I am supposed to feel toward Pujols for turning down such a contract, especially since he grew up in less than stellar conditions in the Dominican Republic?

There is no conceivable way to question Pujols’ credentials. He is arguably the game’s best player and deserves to be paid handsomely. But I don’t know if it is realistic to compare what he could make to what players on the New York Yankees make. That throws out the likes of Alex Rodriguez, C.C. Sabathia, and Mark Texiera. A-Rod and Texiera also have the option of playing DH the last few years of their contract if age begins to take away their fielding skills. Besides, the Yankees are a whole other gorilla to tackle, and well, Albert, if you want that kind of cash, Brian Cashman would probably love to talk to you because he needs something positive going for him.

The Cardinals have stated that they can’t get into the payroll stratosphere with the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox. By signing Pujols to an A-Rod type deal, not only would the organization blow its payroll through the roof, but the chances of building a championship-type contender around the star first baseman would be severely limited.

There’s no question that the Cardinals are taking a risk by not reaching a deal with Pujols yet. Truth be told, it never should have gotten to this point. But it has, and the Cardinals are going to have to dig deep into the coffers because Pujols is asking for the bank vault and the keys to lock the vault up after he’s done with it. Signing Pujols to a contract that exceeds either of A-Rod’s last two contracts will make it less likely that Pujols will add another ring to that hand. Way to cripple your organization, Albert!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The College Basketball Top 25 Purpose Debate Verdict

February 16, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Bleacher Fan.

I asked Bleacher Fan and Optimist Prime to debate the relevance of polls in college basketball, due in large part to the fact that in our pre-production meeting last week, the relevance of the polls was called into question. When that happens, that’s usually a good signal that a debate is on the horizon.

It was evident when assigning sides that Bleacher Fan would argue about the IRRELEVANCE of the polls. This was due to the fact that Mr. Fan is a proud graduate of the University of Akron and still actively follows the Zips. In fact, last year Mr. Fan managed to sneak out of the office a couple of days to walk down the street to watch some of the MAC conference tournament at The Q in Cleveland, Ohio. Surprisingly, that was not brought up in the argument. However, some quality points were made.

While the first seeds were exactly matched up with the first four positions in the poll, it did differ quite a bit the further down the research went. What struck me was the fact that Baylor, which was ranked 21st, somehow got a third seed. I forgot that fact. The selection committee obviously saw something in those Scott Drew’s Bears from Waco that the pollsters didn’t, and maybe they were right, considering Baylor did advance to the Elite Eight before losing to eventual national champion Duke. The rankings are totally disregarded as the committee tries to match up major conference representatives in each bracket as evenly as possible. Bleacher Fan suspects (and he’s probably right) that San Diego State, even with a win over BYU, could be upset on Selection Sunday with its seeding, despite a likely top five ranking in the conventional polls.

Optimist Prime takes the opposite side, but, you know, that’s because that’s what happens in a debate! The angle is that polls and rankings are relevant because they give teams a chance to gauge where they are. Maybe it provides a struggling team a boost of confidence when they knock off a ranked team or provides the opposite effect to the team that loses to the unranked team. I don’t recall the Tiger-Wahoo matchup used in the debate, but on the opposite end, imagine the uptick that Kansas State – a team squarely on the bubble – could very well get from knocking off the number one ranked Kansas Jayhawks on Monday night. That’s what I gathered that Optimist Prime was going for in the debate. Like the closing of the argument states, how would anyone know when to rush the court without that little number one beside the defeated visiting team?

I went back and forth on this even while typing this decision. I started out thinking one way, but then wasn’t so sure. But, by looking at the corresponding evidence, I am awarding the victory to Bleacher Fan.

We can all agree the rankings provide good conversation for fans. They add buzz to the games. But in the big picture, they obviously are no factor in what happens during March. The NCAA tournament selection committee looks at a teams’ RPI, its strength of schedule, and other factors. One of those others factors is not the team’s standing in the top 25. Those rankings are thrown in the nearby trash can, which is probably where Optimist Prime is going to throw this verdict. There’s just been too much inconsistency when comparing the rankings to the seeds in the tournament, and what happens comes tournament time is ultimately what matters and is RELEVANT.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The College Basketball Top 25 Purpose Debate

February 15, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Optimist Prime and Bleacher Fan.

It’s human nature for us to check the polls every Monday to see where our favorite college basketball team is ranked. The rankings sometimes provide water cooler talk at the office, or a quick way to find scores on the bottom line or any mobile application on our cell phones. But unlike college football – where rankings do come into play due to the complicated formula of the BCS – the role of the rankings is not as clear cut.

San Diego State currently sits at 23-1 and is ranked sixth in both the AP poll and the coaches poll. However, the team has just one game that all of us remember, when the Aztecs played their showdown with BYU back on January 26th. We all know that was the Jimmer Fredette show. If the Aztecs win their rematch with the Cougars and run the table from here on out, there are questions as to whether or not they will be a number one seed due to NCAA tournament terms such as RPI and SOS…

Which leads us to today’s debate. Should the polls and rankings even matter in college basketball?

Bleacher Fan – who is a big fan of mid-majors due to his allegiance to his alma mater in Akron – will argue that rankings mean nothing. Optimist Prime, on the opposite end of the spectrum, will argue that rankings provide meaning and a sense of structure to college basketball.

I am judge and jury on this selection committee, and both of you are on the bubble. Whose bubble will burst? (Editor’s Note: Gross.)

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The College Basketball Top 25 Purpose Debate… Watch Me Pull A Ranking Out of My Hat!

February 15, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

When I was eight years old I thought the greatest illusion ever performed happened on my television when I watched David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China.

Then I discovered college basketball.

The NCAA Division I basketball, each year, pulls off a feat that would make Blackstone ask, “How’d they do that?!” What is the illusion, you ask? It is the illusion that there is any value at all to the top 25 ranking.

In college football, the top 25 rankings serve a very important function. They help to determine which teams get to participate in the series of the biggest bowl games, and ultimately which two teams will compete for the National Championship.

What purpose does the top 25 poll serve in basketball?

Last year, do you know what the respective national rankings were for Duke and Butler as they entered March Madness? Duke was ranked fourth in the nation, while Butler was ranked number 12. Despite those rankings (which in College Football earned #12 Missouri an invitation to the Insight Bowl… Ooooohhhh!!!!), those were the two teams that faced off for the crown last April.

Unlike the Football Bowl Subdivision of the NCAA, every single one of the more than 300 teams in Division I basketball kick the season off with an opportunity to compete for the National Championship. They don’t have to impress any voters, or beat the “right” teams. They don’t even have to have a good regular season.

All they have to do is win the conference tournament.

Sure, the worse a team does in the regular season, the tougher their road to, and through, the national tournament is, but that doesn’t change the simple fact that a team needs only to win in the post-season, and it is through to the Tournament.

If the top 25 rankings are irrelevant and unnecessary when populating the 64 teams for the national championship tournament, they must SURELY impact the seeding in the tournament, don’t they? I mean it only makes sense to do it that way. Teams ranked one through four would be given one-seeds, then the teams ranked five through eight get two-seeds, and so on.

WRONG!

Last year, for example, the teams ranked one through four did each earn a top seed in the national tournament (Kansas, Duke, Syracuse, and Kentucky).

So what about the two-seeds?

After the top four in the rankings came Ohio State (fifth in the nation), Purdue (sixth), West Virginia (seventh), and New Mexico (eighth). But neither Purdue nor New Mexico were rewarded with the second spot in their respective brackets. Instead, it was Ohio State, West Virginia, Kansas State (ranked ninth in the country) and Villanova (ranked tenth).

New Mexico actually received a three-seed, and Purdue (the sixth best team in the country, according to the national rankings) was bumped all the way down to a four-seed, while Baylor (the 21st ranked team in the country) was seeded third, ahead of them in the same region.

What led to the disparity between the national rankings and the seedings for the national tournament? Once again, it was the selection committee.

Rather than overload a region with too many teams from the same conference, or with a prospective high-powered regular season rematch too early in the dance, they try to distribute the Major Conference representatives evenly across the bracket, regardless of their projected worth on the national stage.

Now, as this year draws towards another March full of basketball Madness, fans of the San Diego State Aztecs (currently ranked sixth in the nation by the AP) can expect the same head-scratching logic as an answer to the questions of why they were seeded third or fourth – behind some big-named program from a big-named conference like the 20-team Big East – that will simply ride the merits of their name and neighborhood into an easier road to Houston.

The top 25 rankings are completely worthless in college basketball. They provide water cooler conversation at the workplace, and give sportswriters something to do each week in the football off-season. But when it comes to what really matters (a chance at the national championship), they hold as much value as a Mel Kiper, Jr. mock draft.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Spurs Leading the Pack Debate Verdict

February 10, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

The San Antonio Spurs are off to one of the best starts in NBA history. And when you consider that their historical company has each gone on to win the championship in the respective seasons they started so strongly, it makes you wonder if the Spurs are destined for the same fate.

But we are not trying to gaze into a crystal ball, today.

This debate is not about whether the Spurs will win the NBA Finals, it is about whether they are the best team in the league. And based on what I have read from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer, it seems clear to me that the answer is – Yes, they are (congratulations to Loyal Homer)!

Babe Ruthless does raise some key questions about the Spurs performance to this point in the season. Specifically, he calls into doubt the Spurs record by pointing out that they have what many would consider an easy schedule. And while it is true that they have won the vast majority of those cupcake games, they have faltered when stepping onto the hardwood against steeper competition.

Although I can agree with that assessment, the exact same statement can be made about those other top tier teams that Babe Ruthless points to as challengers to the Spurs. The Boston Celtics have losses to the Dallas Mavericks, Orlando Magic, New Orleans Hornets, and Chicago Bulls, as well as the Cleveland Cavaliers and Toronto Raptors. Likewise, the Heat have lost to the Celtics twice, the Mavs twice, and have also lost to the Magic, as well as Memphis and Indiana.

The same can be illustrated by dissecting the records of the Maverics, Magic, and every other team in the league. Each organization has played more than 50 games, and none are undefeated. And so the fact that the Spurs lost a couple of their 52 games played thus far to other good teams is just not enough evidence to refute their claim as the best in the NBA.

On the flip side, though, Loyal Homer points to some statistics that CANNOT be matched by any other teams in the league.

Only once so far this season have the Spurs lost consecutive games, and that was simply a two-game skid on the road against the Knicks, then in Boston against the Celtics (a very understandable couple of losses). And while those consecutive losses have not been repeated by the Spurs, one feat they have duplicated is following their losses up with a LONG series of consecutive wins.

It should also be noted that their schedule may on the surface appear to be one of the weaker in the league, but the actual average winning percentage of their opponents (.506) has statistically posed a tougher strength of schedule than what the Heat (.477), Celtics (.485), Magic (.493), Lakers (.479), and the Bulls (.482) have each faced.

In all reality, there are still plenty of games left in the season, and the fact that the Spurs have the best record in the NBA right now is no guarantee that they will win the Finals. But teams like the 2007 New England Patriots will tell you that the best team doesn’t always win the championship.

No one can look into a crystal ball and predict which team will win the championship, but you can look at the records and see who has been most dominant – the San Antonio Spurs.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.