Game One of the NBA Finals is in the books, and the Heat are already looking good to capture the title. During the 4th quarter of last night's game, color commentator Jeff Van Gundy made an observation as the Heat were beginning to take control of the game and the Mavericks were trying to stay alive.
I won't get the wording exactly correct, but Van Gundy said something to the affect of: the difference in the game right now is that Dallas doesn't have Lebron or Wade.
Uh, no kidding Jeff. It was a mind-numbing observation that made me laugh when I first heard it. As I thought about it more, though, I understood what he meant. And I realized that Van Gundy's point is the same reason he and I picked the Heat to win the NBA Championship when James, Wade and Bosh decided they would team up in Miami.
Van Gundy's wasn't just trying to show that he was capable of differentiating the Miami jerseys from the Dallas ones. The point he was making (which, granted, could have been done more eloquently) was that Dallas just doesn't have the star power to stick with the Heat in those late game situations. In the NBA, perhaps more than in any other league, the stars make the difference late in the game.
Because they play offense and defense, fantastic athletes like James and Wade can summon up a little more effort on defense in the fourth quarter and be dominant players on that end of the floor. You just don't see it all game, because playing like that for 35-38 minutes would hurt their offensive production.
Just think about the last few games for Miami. Last night against Dallas, it was Wade making shots, getting steals, skying over bigger players for rebounds, and getting assists in transition. He was unbelievable. In game five against Chicago, it was James, hitting threes, hitting the go-ahead jumper, shutting Derrick Rose down (in game four in Miami as well) down the stretch, and of course getting the big block to close out the game.
Sure, the Mavs have Dirk, but he's not as gifted athletically as Miami's players are. Dirk is certainly capable of ratcheting up his defensive effort in crunch time, but he doesn't become a difference maker in the way the stars on the Heat do. His offense is incredible, but that is only going to be able to get his team so far in this series. I don't see a player on the Mavericks that is capable of changing the game on the defensive end of the floor when they need it most.
And that is why (sigh) the Heat are going to win this championship, and the future of the NBA will hang in the balance.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Meet the Mets
It's 3-1 heading to the bottom of the seventh inning, with Mets "ace" Mike Pelfrey on the mound have lived up to that moniker so far in the game. With the Yankees' seven, eight and nine hitters due up in the seventh, it's looking like Pelfrey will have a good opportunity to cruise through the inning. Then, Brett Gardner stepped up and delivered a grounder right through Pelfrey's legs for a base hit. Shaking his head knowing he should have made the play, Pelfrey geared up for the next batter. He never recovered.
A quick walk, then a hit batter on what was going to be a sacrifice bunt attempt had the bases loaded with nobody out and the top of the vaunted Yankee order coming up. Even an aging, awful Derek Jeter knows how to handle that situation. One swing of the bat, and it was a tie game.
The Yankees went on to score six more runs in that inning, which ended up providing the final score of 9-3. It was the ultimate example of the difference between the two clubs from New York.
For some reason the Mets just don't seem to enjoy winning very much. They are certainly the less talented of the teams, and would be expected to lose more often than not against the Yankees. But with a two-run lead in the seventh inning and your starter still out there, just a couple innings away from passing the ball to your red hot closer? Should be a W every time. But with the Mets, that lead-off ground ball always seems to make it between the legs for a base hit, and no Yankees pitcher would throw into a bunting batter's shoulder on the first pitch. They just wouldn't lose control like that.
What the Yankees do do, and do very well, is capitalize on those types of boneheaded plays. You want to hand them the bases loaded with no outs? They'll turn it into a four run rally at least. The Mets? A 3-2-3 double play followed by a foul out is just as likely as any other outcome.
Why is that? What is the huge difference? Both teams have outlandish payrolls and talented players. So what is it about that Yankee culture that instills winning? What are the Mets missing? If they ever figure it out, they'll be a force to be reckoned with. Maybe then they'll take some games off the Phillies during the season, too.
A quick walk, then a hit batter on what was going to be a sacrifice bunt attempt had the bases loaded with nobody out and the top of the vaunted Yankee order coming up. Even an aging, awful Derek Jeter knows how to handle that situation. One swing of the bat, and it was a tie game.
The Yankees went on to score six more runs in that inning, which ended up providing the final score of 9-3. It was the ultimate example of the difference between the two clubs from New York.
For some reason the Mets just don't seem to enjoy winning very much. They are certainly the less talented of the teams, and would be expected to lose more often than not against the Yankees. But with a two-run lead in the seventh inning and your starter still out there, just a couple innings away from passing the ball to your red hot closer? Should be a W every time. But with the Mets, that lead-off ground ball always seems to make it between the legs for a base hit, and no Yankees pitcher would throw into a bunting batter's shoulder on the first pitch. They just wouldn't lose control like that.
What the Yankees do do, and do very well, is capitalize on those types of boneheaded plays. You want to hand them the bases loaded with no outs? They'll turn it into a four run rally at least. The Mets? A 3-2-3 double play followed by a foul out is just as likely as any other outcome.
Why is that? What is the huge difference? Both teams have outlandish payrolls and talented players. So what is it about that Yankee culture that instills winning? What are the Mets missing? If they ever figure it out, they'll be a force to be reckoned with. Maybe then they'll take some games off the Phillies during the season, too.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
NBA Conference Finals
Two games have passed in the NBA Eastern Conference Finals and, as is always the case with the NBA, there are some things from those games worth paying attention to and others that aren't. So what have we learned so far?
In the Eastern Conference Finals between the Chicago Bulls and Miami Heat, the two games have been extremely different in the second halves. The first halves in each game were almost identical scorewise (tied at 48 in game one, 48-46 Miami in game two). The difference in game one was a dominant Bulls second half, in which they held Miami to just 34 points. The Bulls offensive output in the second half of game two? 29 points. Clearly defense has been the key in the first two games of the series. But I'm not convinced it's just defense that's making that difference.
In game one, Derrick Rose went 10-22 from the field and scored 28 points, Luol Deng added 21 on 7-15 shooting, and Taj Gibson came of the bench to be the spark plug, scoring nine points and grabbing seven boards, with some emphatic dunks to boot. On the other side, only Chris Bosh had a good game for Miami. His 30 points were big, but Lebron James and Dwyane Wade only combined for 33 points (15 and 18, respectively). I think it's safe to say Miami is going to struggle if those two put up anemic offensive numbers like that.
Flash forward to game two. In a Miami win, James and Wade went for a combined 53 points and 19 rebounds. Udonis Haslem came off the bench and provided 13 big points and 5 rebounds, along with some emphatic dunks. For the Bulls, things didn't go so well. Rose scored 23 points, but on 7-23 shooting. Deng had only 13 after scoring nine in the first quarter, and Gibson wasn't so big off the bench, with eight points and one board. Sound familiar?
Basically, the script was flipped between games. I don't think Chicago's defense changed much, James and Wade just made more shots in game two. Miami's defense did change a bit, with their two stars manning up on Rose more often, but it's not likely that will result in a 7-23 performance every night. He's just too good for something like that. Who knows if Haslem and Gibson will be big off the bench ever again in this series as well.
So what have we learned through two games of the Eastern Conference Finals? Damn, not as much as we thought. Chicago was extremely impressive in game one's second half, and then Lebron was extremely impressive in game two's fourth quarter. Hopefully we'll be treated to a game three in which both teams play well: Rose going for 25-plus, and three of Chicago's role players going for 15 or more, while James and Wade complete another 50-plus point performance, while both team's benches contribute, but Chicago's bench is a bit better. I think coming into the series that is what a prototype game would have looked like, and until we see one, it's going to be hard to say what'll happen from here on out.
In the Eastern Conference Finals between the Chicago Bulls and Miami Heat, the two games have been extremely different in the second halves. The first halves in each game were almost identical scorewise (tied at 48 in game one, 48-46 Miami in game two). The difference in game one was a dominant Bulls second half, in which they held Miami to just 34 points. The Bulls offensive output in the second half of game two? 29 points. Clearly defense has been the key in the first two games of the series. But I'm not convinced it's just defense that's making that difference.
In game one, Derrick Rose went 10-22 from the field and scored 28 points, Luol Deng added 21 on 7-15 shooting, and Taj Gibson came of the bench to be the spark plug, scoring nine points and grabbing seven boards, with some emphatic dunks to boot. On the other side, only Chris Bosh had a good game for Miami. His 30 points were big, but Lebron James and Dwyane Wade only combined for 33 points (15 and 18, respectively). I think it's safe to say Miami is going to struggle if those two put up anemic offensive numbers like that.
Flash forward to game two. In a Miami win, James and Wade went for a combined 53 points and 19 rebounds. Udonis Haslem came off the bench and provided 13 big points and 5 rebounds, along with some emphatic dunks. For the Bulls, things didn't go so well. Rose scored 23 points, but on 7-23 shooting. Deng had only 13 after scoring nine in the first quarter, and Gibson wasn't so big off the bench, with eight points and one board. Sound familiar?
Basically, the script was flipped between games. I don't think Chicago's defense changed much, James and Wade just made more shots in game two. Miami's defense did change a bit, with their two stars manning up on Rose more often, but it's not likely that will result in a 7-23 performance every night. He's just too good for something like that. Who knows if Haslem and Gibson will be big off the bench ever again in this series as well.
So what have we learned through two games of the Eastern Conference Finals? Damn, not as much as we thought. Chicago was extremely impressive in game one's second half, and then Lebron was extremely impressive in game two's fourth quarter. Hopefully we'll be treated to a game three in which both teams play well: Rose going for 25-plus, and three of Chicago's role players going for 15 or more, while James and Wade complete another 50-plus point performance, while both team's benches contribute, but Chicago's bench is a bit better. I think coming into the series that is what a prototype game would have looked like, and until we see one, it's going to be hard to say what'll happen from here on out.
Monday, May 2, 2011
A victory, yes, but don't blow it out of proportion
As a New York Mets fan living in Dayton, Ohio, I don't get to see many of the team's games on TV. Whenever they're actually on TV here, then, I make a point to watch the Metropolitans play, even if they aren't any good. That would certainly be the case this year, as the Mets find themselves at the bottom of the NL East standings. Still, a chance to see them play the first-place Philadelphia Phillies, the Mets' chief rival these days in baseball, was too good to pass up. So last night I turned the TV on while studying for a final and watched some ESPN Sunday Night Baseball.
If you're a sports fan or watch Sportscenter ever, then you've heard about what happened during last night's Mets-Phillies game. During the ninth inning, the news of Osama bin Laden's death had spread quickly through Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, and most of the fans could be heard chanting "USA!" for a significant portion of the inning. It was a unique moment that I can't remember seeing elsewhere in all the time I've been following sports, where fans cared a lot more about what was going on outside the stadium than inside of it (in a 1-1 tie in the ninth inning, no less.)
Of course on Sportscenter the symbolism of a New York team being the team playing when the country found out about the good news was talked about, but the symbolism went a whole lot further than me. In a way, bin Laden's death and what it means for the United States' battle against terror reflects just about the same thing most baseball teams, and especially the Mets, are going through right now.
Was bin Laden's killing important? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean this thing is close to being over. Ten years after the fact, does it really matter that we finally got the guy who was supposedly the head of the 9/11 attacks? You bet. But in the grand scheme of things, it's barely a blip on the radar.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we finally got him, and I hope that all those who lost love ones can find some form of closure out of the news. But his death is eerily similar to the Mets' 2-1 victory over the Phillies last night: They've still got lightyears to go before they've accomplished anything truly meaningful.
At 12-16, Terry Collins and crew are still one of the doormats of the league. Did beating the best team in the NL feel good though? Hell yeah, especially with Cliff Lee on the mound. Fact of the matter is, though, there is still so much the Mets need to work on, like their starting and relief pitching, not to mention their clutch hitting.
Don't take this the wrong way. It was an awesome moment for America, and an awesome win to watch the Mets get. But just like those last-place Metropolitans, we've still got 134 games to go, a seemingly unending season in front of us. Celebrate for a little, bit, but then it's time to get back to work.
If you're a sports fan or watch Sportscenter ever, then you've heard about what happened during last night's Mets-Phillies game. During the ninth inning, the news of Osama bin Laden's death had spread quickly through Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, and most of the fans could be heard chanting "USA!" for a significant portion of the inning. It was a unique moment that I can't remember seeing elsewhere in all the time I've been following sports, where fans cared a lot more about what was going on outside the stadium than inside of it (in a 1-1 tie in the ninth inning, no less.)
Of course on Sportscenter the symbolism of a New York team being the team playing when the country found out about the good news was talked about, but the symbolism went a whole lot further than me. In a way, bin Laden's death and what it means for the United States' battle against terror reflects just about the same thing most baseball teams, and especially the Mets, are going through right now.
Was bin Laden's killing important? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean this thing is close to being over. Ten years after the fact, does it really matter that we finally got the guy who was supposedly the head of the 9/11 attacks? You bet. But in the grand scheme of things, it's barely a blip on the radar.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we finally got him, and I hope that all those who lost love ones can find some form of closure out of the news. But his death is eerily similar to the Mets' 2-1 victory over the Phillies last night: They've still got lightyears to go before they've accomplished anything truly meaningful.
At 12-16, Terry Collins and crew are still one of the doormats of the league. Did beating the best team in the NL feel good though? Hell yeah, especially with Cliff Lee on the mound. Fact of the matter is, though, there is still so much the Mets need to work on, like their starting and relief pitching, not to mention their clutch hitting.
Don't take this the wrong way. It was an awesome moment for America, and an awesome win to watch the Mets get. But just like those last-place Metropolitans, we've still got 134 games to go, a seemingly unending season in front of us. Celebrate for a little, bit, but then it's time to get back to work.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Why you headed there, Wan?
The word has come down, and former University of Dayton guard Juwan Staten has announced where he's headed.
According to the Dayton Daily News, the sophomore-to-be who left UD saying he believed his talents weren't being properly utilized, tweeted that he will be transferring to Penn State University.
If you're like me, you read that and thought, "Huh?" This seems like one an odd decision, so let's run through it.
Staten said he was transferring because his talents weren't properly utilized, but then former Dayton head coach Brian Gregory took off for Georgia Tech. At that point, Staten still had the option of playing at UD. Admittedly, that would have been tough for Staten to do, since he had already said he wanted to leave. But still, Staten insisted Dayton wasn't the right place for him.
But Penn State is? Why is the level of success going to be any higher for Staten there? Yeah, Penn State made the NCAA Tournament this year, but barely, as a 10 seed. This was the team's first tournament appearance since 2001. UD has been to the tournament more often in the past decade (three times) than the Nittany Lions have. So does Staten think he'll have more success with Ed DeChellis than Archie Miller? As far as the programs' two histories are concerned, he's wrong.
Maybe it's about individual glory for Staten. His first year at UD was successful from an individual standpoint, but not phenomenal. He was a good distributor, but struggled shooting the ball from outside the paint. He showed he has the talent to be good, but does he really think he will blossom at Penn State?
Certainly, PSU has a precedent for good guards in the past. Just last year, they were led by Talor Battle, a guard with size similar to Staten's, who was an All-Big Ten Selection for two years at Penn State. But after his junior season, Battle made himself eligible for the NBA draft. He didn't garner much interest from NBA teams. The same will likely be true this year. Battle is ranked 61st by DraftExpress.com among NCAA seniors only, meaning the likes of Kyrie Irving, Derrick Williams, Brandon Knight and Terrence Jones will definitely be in front of him on NBA teams' draft boards.
Does Staten think he will be more successful than Battle has been at Penn State? Battle is Penn State's all-time leading scorer, and led the Big Ten in scoring his sophomore year. He led Penn State in scoring, rebounding and assists his junior year. He is one of the all-time greats at Penn State, and he is almost certainly going to be playing in Europe or the NBA Developmental League.
The likelihood is Staten will not have a better career than Battle did as Nittany Lion. So why is he going to Penn State? On his Twitter account, the Dayton Daily News reported Staten tweeted, "Just an 18 year old kid tryna make my dreams come true." What are Staten's dreams? I figured the biggest one was to play in the NBA. Now I'm not so sure, because the last player Penn State had drafted was Calvin Booth in 1999.
I'm not saying UD is a better place to forge an NBA career. But once Staten decided to transfer, I figured he would give himself a better chance at a pro career in the U.S. So why Penn State? Maybe Staten wants to be broadcast on the Big Ten Network instead of CBS College Sports. Maybe he would prefer to be at a school where football comes first way way way before basketball. Whatever his reasons, I'm scratching my head.
According to the Dayton Daily News, the sophomore-to-be who left UD saying he believed his talents weren't being properly utilized, tweeted that he will be transferring to Penn State University.
If you're like me, you read that and thought, "Huh?" This seems like one an odd decision, so let's run through it.
Staten said he was transferring because his talents weren't properly utilized, but then former Dayton head coach Brian Gregory took off for Georgia Tech. At that point, Staten still had the option of playing at UD. Admittedly, that would have been tough for Staten to do, since he had already said he wanted to leave. But still, Staten insisted Dayton wasn't the right place for him.
But Penn State is? Why is the level of success going to be any higher for Staten there? Yeah, Penn State made the NCAA Tournament this year, but barely, as a 10 seed. This was the team's first tournament appearance since 2001. UD has been to the tournament more often in the past decade (three times) than the Nittany Lions have. So does Staten think he'll have more success with Ed DeChellis than Archie Miller? As far as the programs' two histories are concerned, he's wrong.
Maybe it's about individual glory for Staten. His first year at UD was successful from an individual standpoint, but not phenomenal. He was a good distributor, but struggled shooting the ball from outside the paint. He showed he has the talent to be good, but does he really think he will blossom at Penn State?
Certainly, PSU has a precedent for good guards in the past. Just last year, they were led by Talor Battle, a guard with size similar to Staten's, who was an All-Big Ten Selection for two years at Penn State. But after his junior season, Battle made himself eligible for the NBA draft. He didn't garner much interest from NBA teams. The same will likely be true this year. Battle is ranked 61st by DraftExpress.com among NCAA seniors only, meaning the likes of Kyrie Irving, Derrick Williams, Brandon Knight and Terrence Jones will definitely be in front of him on NBA teams' draft boards.
Does Staten think he will be more successful than Battle has been at Penn State? Battle is Penn State's all-time leading scorer, and led the Big Ten in scoring his sophomore year. He led Penn State in scoring, rebounding and assists his junior year. He is one of the all-time greats at Penn State, and he is almost certainly going to be playing in Europe or the NBA Developmental League.
The likelihood is Staten will not have a better career than Battle did as Nittany Lion. So why is he going to Penn State? On his Twitter account, the Dayton Daily News reported Staten tweeted, "Just an 18 year old kid tryna make my dreams come true." What are Staten's dreams? I figured the biggest one was to play in the NBA. Now I'm not so sure, because the last player Penn State had drafted was Calvin Booth in 1999.
I'm not saying UD is a better place to forge an NBA career. But once Staten decided to transfer, I figured he would give himself a better chance at a pro career in the U.S. So why Penn State? Maybe Staten wants to be broadcast on the Big Ten Network instead of CBS College Sports. Maybe he would prefer to be at a school where football comes first way way way before basketball. Whatever his reasons, I'm scratching my head.
Monday, April 18, 2011
The NBA Playoffs start with a bang
The NBA Playoffs have always been an awesome postseason. It's a time when even non-NBA fans can enjoy some basketball because all the players actually care about whether they win or lose, so the play tough defense, actually look at the hoop when they're taking free throws, and continue with doing the absolutely ridiculous feats of athleticism they have all regular season long.
Well, this year's playoffs are looking like they might be any better, if the first games of each series are any indication. There has been a 10-point comeback in the final 3:30 of a game (Bulls over Pacers, a 46 point performance (Dwight Howard, whose team lost), a late three-ball to win it in Boston by Ray Allen, two shocking upsets in the Western Conference (including one of the great performances of the entire season by Chris Paul), and a high-energy, close throughout shootout between two of the team's youngest teams in Oklahoma City. Did I mention not a single series has played game two yet?
It has been one of the truly great weekends of basketball I can remember. The first two days of these playoffs have been as good or better than any first round NCAA Tournament action (the round of 64, to clarify; I'm boycotting calling that the second round). Usually, nothing can top the NCAA Tournament because you never have to settle for watching bad basketball. If one game is boring, or another is a blowout, you've got four more options to choose from. Saturday and Sunday in the NBA Playoffs, there was not a moment of bad basketball to be watched.
The question now becomes, can this possibly continue? Unfortunately for some of the series, I think the answer is probably no. The Pacers expended just about everything they had, played a great game, and still collapsed to lose in game 1 to the Bulls. Now I think the Bulls will grab that momentum and run with it. A sweep seems like a strong possibility. The New Orleans Hornets will have a tough time maintaining what they produced in game 1 against the Lakers. Chris Paul was phenomenal, but I don't think his supporting cast will continue to produce like they did. The Hornets might take another game away at home, but the Lakers will recover.
The good news, however, is that plenty of series ought to keep on trucking just like in game 1. There is no reason the Denver Nuggets and Oklahoma City Thunder won't have similar games for the next five or six. The New York Knicks proved that they will be able to stick with the Boston Celtics in their series. A young Memphis Grizzlies team looks like they will give the San Antonio Spurs all they can handle and possibly pull off an epic 8-seed over 1-seed upset. The Orlando Magic and Atlanta Hawks look primed to battle for seven games as well.
What's the point here? Even if you're typically not an NBA fan, start watching. This is great stuff. I know, I know, the fact that NBA players are lazy and that they are obsessed with money and their images is annoying, but don't let that deter you from the fact that their basketball is phenomenal. They're the best athletes in the world, and for the next month and a half their best will be on display. So tune in for crying out loud! You won't be disappointed.
Well, this year's playoffs are looking like they might be any better, if the first games of each series are any indication. There has been a 10-point comeback in the final 3:30 of a game (Bulls over Pacers, a 46 point performance (Dwight Howard, whose team lost), a late three-ball to win it in Boston by Ray Allen, two shocking upsets in the Western Conference (including one of the great performances of the entire season by Chris Paul), and a high-energy, close throughout shootout between two of the team's youngest teams in Oklahoma City. Did I mention not a single series has played game two yet?
It has been one of the truly great weekends of basketball I can remember. The first two days of these playoffs have been as good or better than any first round NCAA Tournament action (the round of 64, to clarify; I'm boycotting calling that the second round). Usually, nothing can top the NCAA Tournament because you never have to settle for watching bad basketball. If one game is boring, or another is a blowout, you've got four more options to choose from. Saturday and Sunday in the NBA Playoffs, there was not a moment of bad basketball to be watched.
The question now becomes, can this possibly continue? Unfortunately for some of the series, I think the answer is probably no. The Pacers expended just about everything they had, played a great game, and still collapsed to lose in game 1 to the Bulls. Now I think the Bulls will grab that momentum and run with it. A sweep seems like a strong possibility. The New Orleans Hornets will have a tough time maintaining what they produced in game 1 against the Lakers. Chris Paul was phenomenal, but I don't think his supporting cast will continue to produce like they did. The Hornets might take another game away at home, but the Lakers will recover.
The good news, however, is that plenty of series ought to keep on trucking just like in game 1. There is no reason the Denver Nuggets and Oklahoma City Thunder won't have similar games for the next five or six. The New York Knicks proved that they will be able to stick with the Boston Celtics in their series. A young Memphis Grizzlies team looks like they will give the San Antonio Spurs all they can handle and possibly pull off an epic 8-seed over 1-seed upset. The Orlando Magic and Atlanta Hawks look primed to battle for seven games as well.
What's the point here? Even if you're typically not an NBA fan, start watching. This is great stuff. I know, I know, the fact that NBA players are lazy and that they are obsessed with money and their images is annoying, but don't let that deter you from the fact that their basketball is phenomenal. They're the best athletes in the world, and for the next month and a half their best will be on display. So tune in for crying out loud! You won't be disappointed.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Mediocrity's Trick
I'll admit it: Butler and UConn had me fooled.
I listened to every ESPN pundit when they kept telling me Butler wasn't an underdog, and I ignored the fact that they had lost five games in the Horizon League (not a bad league by any stretch, but no team losing five games is national title worthy).
I also ignored the fact that UConn placed ninth in the Big East, going just 9-9 in everyone's favorite conference to overrate. Yeah, the Huskies caught fire and reeled off a great stretch of wins, but that team was still nowhere near as good as Ohio State or Kansas this year.
That Connecticut and Butler played each other in the title game is both the beauty and the curse of the NCAA Tournament. Any team can get hot and go on a run, especially if you have individual players that are on fire (Kemba Walker and Shelvin Mack). But college basketball took a huge step back rather than forward with UConn's 53-41 victory in the National Championship. Yes, UConn's 11 straight wins and Butler two straight trips to the title game are both incredible feats and should be lauded. But those aren't what will be remembered in this game. Instead, we'll remember how UConn was basically fortunate to run into Butler on one of it's coldest shooting nights in years. The Huskies played strong defense, but the Bulldogs' shooting was the bigger issue. Butler went 9-33 from beyond the arc, 8-14 from the foul line, and an astoundingly bad 3-31 on two point field goals. You read that correctly. No defense is that good.
We were all excited to watch these teams play so well en route to this game, but what happened Monday night was pitiful. We allowed ourselves to forget that these teams had been mediocre during the season. There was a reason Butler was an 8 seed, and a reason UConn needed to win the Big East Tourney to get a 3 seed in an off year. During Monday night's game, all those memories came rushing back.
In last year's tournament it almost felt as though Duke deserved an asterisk next to their win, because it seemed so easy going in. If that was the case then, it is all the more pronounced now. What's really sad is that winning the national championship almost takes away from UConn's incredible run, just because of the way that game was played. The Dayton Flyers could have won that game, with or without Juwan Staten and Brandon Spearman.
I used to think that 1 and 2 seeds filling up the Final Four was boring, because there were none of those major upsets. The tournament's unpredictability was always what made it so exciting to watch.
This year, the first four rounds were rife with upsets, each one seeming more stunning than the last. It was great at the time. But the end result? Anything but exciting.
I listened to every ESPN pundit when they kept telling me Butler wasn't an underdog, and I ignored the fact that they had lost five games in the Horizon League (not a bad league by any stretch, but no team losing five games is national title worthy).
I also ignored the fact that UConn placed ninth in the Big East, going just 9-9 in everyone's favorite conference to overrate. Yeah, the Huskies caught fire and reeled off a great stretch of wins, but that team was still nowhere near as good as Ohio State or Kansas this year.
That Connecticut and Butler played each other in the title game is both the beauty and the curse of the NCAA Tournament. Any team can get hot and go on a run, especially if you have individual players that are on fire (Kemba Walker and Shelvin Mack). But college basketball took a huge step back rather than forward with UConn's 53-41 victory in the National Championship. Yes, UConn's 11 straight wins and Butler two straight trips to the title game are both incredible feats and should be lauded. But those aren't what will be remembered in this game. Instead, we'll remember how UConn was basically fortunate to run into Butler on one of it's coldest shooting nights in years. The Huskies played strong defense, but the Bulldogs' shooting was the bigger issue. Butler went 9-33 from beyond the arc, 8-14 from the foul line, and an astoundingly bad 3-31 on two point field goals. You read that correctly. No defense is that good.
We were all excited to watch these teams play so well en route to this game, but what happened Monday night was pitiful. We allowed ourselves to forget that these teams had been mediocre during the season. There was a reason Butler was an 8 seed, and a reason UConn needed to win the Big East Tourney to get a 3 seed in an off year. During Monday night's game, all those memories came rushing back.
In last year's tournament it almost felt as though Duke deserved an asterisk next to their win, because it seemed so easy going in. If that was the case then, it is all the more pronounced now. What's really sad is that winning the national championship almost takes away from UConn's incredible run, just because of the way that game was played. The Dayton Flyers could have won that game, with or without Juwan Staten and Brandon Spearman.
I used to think that 1 and 2 seeds filling up the Final Four was boring, because there were none of those major upsets. The tournament's unpredictability was always what made it so exciting to watch.
This year, the first four rounds were rife with upsets, each one seeming more stunning than the last. It was great at the time. But the end result? Anything but exciting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)