| Search for your favorite team, players, or school information |
| News And Publications |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Tuesday Tangents
3/24/09
By Scott Miller
So right now everyone is abuzz about their bracket. I am already hurt pretty badly because I had Wyoming going to
the final four. Oh, you thought I meant the NCAA tournament? No, no, I meant the CBI. Are you not following this?
As much as I love the idea of getting these teams extra playing time (go JMU Dukes!) I am very against the third
tournament, the College Basketball Invitational, and just as against the College Insider Tournament (the new
FOURTH tournament this year. What is this rec soccer, everyone needs a trophy?) Can we please stop rewarding
mediocrity.
When it comes to NCAA sports I am pro only things that help the "student-athletes". If students have to sit out a
season when they change schools how come coaches can leave in the middle of their contracts and go to another
school without sitting out? This is an old, tried and true argument that one cannot really come up with a good
answer. I know the NCAA wants to prevent "trades" and making students sit out a year is a good way to do that.
But, at the same time these students aren't getting paid. Most of the time they can't even do anything that could
earn them money. The NCAA is a joke when it comes to what the coaches are allowed to do, and what the players
are allowed to do. That is why I am speaking to basketball players in this article. Next year, when the media guide
says 'seven straight years of post-season play,' please examine that a little more closely, and don't go to that school
if it was a first round loss in the CIT.
Just as a quick aside. When the next great high school basketball player goes to college for one year and breaks
his leg, and is never the same again, and you see the story on "Outside the Lines" five years later when he is
working at a McDonald's, don't say I didn't bring it up.
I very much hope that the student athletes don't fall into the trap of thinking coaches are good because he or she
got the team into the CBI or the CIT (not Counselor in Training, but it might as well be). These tournaments are just
another way for coaches to pretend they are doing something. Administrators, you also cannot fall for this, or you
should be fired along with the coach. Now I know that these tournaments allow the kids to play more. That is
excellent for them as it keeps their career going. But doesn't it cheapen the sport?
All these teams that now win 23-25 games because they win a couple in the tournament, it is a bland 25 wins. Now
all of the sudden your historical run in 1975 when your team won 27 games becomes just another 25 plus win
season if you win a couple of CBI or CIT games. Are these tournaments really worth messing around with your
teams history?
It will hurt even more when we see the all time records of players come toppling down. If you are a mid major fan a
lot of you revere some of those players from 20-25 years ago who you got to watch close up put up ridiculous
numbers. If that one special player got you a one and done in the NCAA tournament that is something to remember
if you got to be there and watch it. But now you will see small teams year after year in the CBI or CIT and players
will be playing possibly more than 10 games more than their predecessors. Is re-writing the history books good? Is
it worth going to "post-season" playing in the CBI or CIT.
Maybe I am just an old school guy. Maybe I just don't like change (I almost passed out when I heard they were
going to start reviewing home runs). But to me if something isn't clearly making the game better, than it might as
well just be making it worse. Please, all the high school athletes reading this, don't fall for the coaches spiel about
the post-season CBI or CIT. No one cares. Not for the right reasons anyway.Happy madness.
3/24/09
By Scott Miller
So right now everyone is abuzz about their bracket. I am already hurt pretty badly because I had Wyoming going to
the final four. Oh, you thought I meant the NCAA tournament? No, no, I meant the CBI. Are you not following this?
As much as I love the idea of getting these teams extra playing time (go JMU Dukes!) I am very against the third
tournament, the College Basketball Invitational, and just as against the College Insider Tournament (the new
FOURTH tournament this year. What is this rec soccer, everyone needs a trophy?) Can we please stop rewarding
mediocrity.
When it comes to NCAA sports I am pro only things that help the "student-athletes". If students have to sit out a
season when they change schools how come coaches can leave in the middle of their contracts and go to another
school without sitting out? This is an old, tried and true argument that one cannot really come up with a good
answer. I know the NCAA wants to prevent "trades" and making students sit out a year is a good way to do that.
But, at the same time these students aren't getting paid. Most of the time they can't even do anything that could
earn them money. The NCAA is a joke when it comes to what the coaches are allowed to do, and what the players
are allowed to do. That is why I am speaking to basketball players in this article. Next year, when the media guide
says 'seven straight years of post-season play,' please examine that a little more closely, and don't go to that school
if it was a first round loss in the CIT.
Just as a quick aside. When the next great high school basketball player goes to college for one year and breaks
his leg, and is never the same again, and you see the story on "Outside the Lines" five years later when he is
working at a McDonald's, don't say I didn't bring it up.
I very much hope that the student athletes don't fall into the trap of thinking coaches are good because he or she
got the team into the CBI or the CIT (not Counselor in Training, but it might as well be). These tournaments are just
another way for coaches to pretend they are doing something. Administrators, you also cannot fall for this, or you
should be fired along with the coach. Now I know that these tournaments allow the kids to play more. That is
excellent for them as it keeps their career going. But doesn't it cheapen the sport?
All these teams that now win 23-25 games because they win a couple in the tournament, it is a bland 25 wins. Now
all of the sudden your historical run in 1975 when your team won 27 games becomes just another 25 plus win
season if you win a couple of CBI or CIT games. Are these tournaments really worth messing around with your
teams history?
It will hurt even more when we see the all time records of players come toppling down. If you are a mid major fan a
lot of you revere some of those players from 20-25 years ago who you got to watch close up put up ridiculous
numbers. If that one special player got you a one and done in the NCAA tournament that is something to remember
if you got to be there and watch it. But now you will see small teams year after year in the CBI or CIT and players
will be playing possibly more than 10 games more than their predecessors. Is re-writing the history books good? Is
it worth going to "post-season" playing in the CBI or CIT.
Maybe I am just an old school guy. Maybe I just don't like change (I almost passed out when I heard they were
going to start reviewing home runs). But to me if something isn't clearly making the game better, than it might as
well just be making it worse. Please, all the high school athletes reading this, don't fall for the coaches spiel about
the post-season CBI or CIT. No one cares. Not for the right reasons anyway.Happy madness.
Tuesday Tangents
3/17/09
By Scott Miller
Only four mid-major teams received at large bids. By now you know this and are already as disgruntled about it as I
am. According to Mike Slive, the chair of the Men's Basketball Committee this year, the group looked at "body of
work." They tried to get the best teams in as possible. As usual someone asked him a tough question. I believe it
was Jay Bilas who said "how are the non power conferences supposed to have as great a body of work when the big
teams will not schedule them." Of course Slive had no answer to that except to repeat his party line that the
committee "does not look at conferences."
Whether or not more non power conferences deserved at large bids or not, I wish I could for once get a straight
answer on the question that Jay Bilas asked. However I don't think we ever will get that answer. Therefore, another
season goes down where the power conferences just get stronger.
Let us move on to a happier note however. It is time for you to start becoming less productive and filling out your
tournament bracket! If you read my article last week you know that between 1.5 and 3.7 billion dollars worth of
productivity is lost in the work place during March Madness. If you did not read my article last week go back and
please do so. Its okay...I'll wait.
There are so many different theories to winning the office pool. I will dissect a couple of them, and see if we can't
come up with the best way, that will require the least amount of hair ripped out of your skull.
1. The "I'm just doing it for fun theory" - Everyone knows a friend or two that doesn’t follow college basketball at all.
I mean zero. They are normally the one that come up to you and ask your advice about their own bracket and
always has a feeling this could be the year that a 16 beats a 1 seed. This guy also probably doubles as the guy
who gets lucky every year in fantasy football. Even though he leaves an injured running back on the bench who
doesn't play, yet his team still wins because he thinks Antonio Bryant is a cool sounding name (okay so what if this is
personal). Inevitably, this guy will pick a first round upset or five and will have a stupid smile on his face that you
want to wipe off. Normally it will end in heartbreak for him as his final four of BC, Utah St., Xavier (because it sounds
cool), and Butler fall short. But it was a nice run while it lasted, and this guy always seems happy win or lose.
2. The "I'm going to breakdown every matchup and get every game right guy" - Every year this person thinks it will
be the year they win their office pool. Somehow they forget that the sheer mathematics are working heavily against
them. Just because you study every game does not mean you should be the favorite to win the pool over the field
of 150 people. It just doesn't work that way. Don't be this guy. You can spot him easily during final four time. He
will come up to you and swear he would have every game right if not for the refs screwing him over. I'd rather you
just have fun with it. In the end the guy who tries too hard doesn't normally win, and is much more angry than the
guy who doesn't care.
3. The "mascot theory" - This is the theory my friend's mom goes by every year in her football pool, and it seems to
work because she is something like a 12 time defending champion. Could an Eagle poke a Giant in the eye
rendering it useless? Of course! Therefore Philly over New York. This theory is fun, and you get to discover a lot
about stupid college team nicknames. During my research when I try this theory I find out great facts such as there
is a "William Smith College" in Geneva, NY. Sadly, they are the Herons, and not the men in black.
4. Just pick the favorites - In pools that don't give upset points this can work. After all, the team is a favorite for a
reason, they are supposed to win. I did a pool like this once before, accidentally, not realizing that we weren't
getting upset points, and proceeded to fill out the bracket like I would normally. Needless to say I wasn't thrilled
when I found out my obligatory 12 over 5 pick didn't earn me all that much. In normal pools do not pick just
favorites. The upset points are too important to skimp on. Make sure you take at least one 12 over 5 and at least
one 13 over a 4 if there are good match-ups for that. This years example would be North Dakota State over
Kansas. Kansas seems to lose every year in the first round (okay so maybe not last year), and North Dakota State
is in their first year of eligibility. It almost seems too perfect.
5. The guy who submits five brackets - Please don't be this guy. Every year he submits the most brackets, and one
of them is always very close to winning. Well of course that is the case. When you have four more brackets than
everyone else technically you have a four times greater chance to win. Submit two brackets at the most! One can
have some of the radicals upsets you foresee, and the other can be a more standard bracket. I hate when I see
people rooting for six different things to happen so that all of their brackets can stay alive. Just do one and be
content with it.
So which theory of those is the best? I have no idea. I have never won a pool, nor have I finished in the top 5 in the
eight years or so that I have been doing them. So if you want some advice not to take, here are some of the things
you will see on my 1 bracket this year:
Final Four: Louisville, Memphis, Pitt, UNC. Creative, I know.
12's over 5's: Arizona over Utah. Wisconsin over Florida St.
Upset pick that everyone else is on except for me: Western Kentucky over Illinois.
Teams I like to make small runs: WVU to the sweet 16. Washington and Villanova to the elite 8.
Winner: Pitt over Louisville in the finals.
Happy madness.
3/17/09
By Scott Miller
Only four mid-major teams received at large bids. By now you know this and are already as disgruntled about it as I
am. According to Mike Slive, the chair of the Men's Basketball Committee this year, the group looked at "body of
work." They tried to get the best teams in as possible. As usual someone asked him a tough question. I believe it
was Jay Bilas who said "how are the non power conferences supposed to have as great a body of work when the big
teams will not schedule them." Of course Slive had no answer to that except to repeat his party line that the
committee "does not look at conferences."
Whether or not more non power conferences deserved at large bids or not, I wish I could for once get a straight
answer on the question that Jay Bilas asked. However I don't think we ever will get that answer. Therefore, another
season goes down where the power conferences just get stronger.
Let us move on to a happier note however. It is time for you to start becoming less productive and filling out your
tournament bracket! If you read my article last week you know that between 1.5 and 3.7 billion dollars worth of
productivity is lost in the work place during March Madness. If you did not read my article last week go back and
please do so. Its okay...I'll wait.
There are so many different theories to winning the office pool. I will dissect a couple of them, and see if we can't
come up with the best way, that will require the least amount of hair ripped out of your skull.
1. The "I'm just doing it for fun theory" - Everyone knows a friend or two that doesn’t follow college basketball at all.
I mean zero. They are normally the one that come up to you and ask your advice about their own bracket and
always has a feeling this could be the year that a 16 beats a 1 seed. This guy also probably doubles as the guy
who gets lucky every year in fantasy football. Even though he leaves an injured running back on the bench who
doesn't play, yet his team still wins because he thinks Antonio Bryant is a cool sounding name (okay so what if this is
personal). Inevitably, this guy will pick a first round upset or five and will have a stupid smile on his face that you
want to wipe off. Normally it will end in heartbreak for him as his final four of BC, Utah St., Xavier (because it sounds
cool), and Butler fall short. But it was a nice run while it lasted, and this guy always seems happy win or lose.
2. The "I'm going to breakdown every matchup and get every game right guy" - Every year this person thinks it will
be the year they win their office pool. Somehow they forget that the sheer mathematics are working heavily against
them. Just because you study every game does not mean you should be the favorite to win the pool over the field
of 150 people. It just doesn't work that way. Don't be this guy. You can spot him easily during final four time. He
will come up to you and swear he would have every game right if not for the refs screwing him over. I'd rather you
just have fun with it. In the end the guy who tries too hard doesn't normally win, and is much more angry than the
guy who doesn't care.
3. The "mascot theory" - This is the theory my friend's mom goes by every year in her football pool, and it seems to
work because she is something like a 12 time defending champion. Could an Eagle poke a Giant in the eye
rendering it useless? Of course! Therefore Philly over New York. This theory is fun, and you get to discover a lot
about stupid college team nicknames. During my research when I try this theory I find out great facts such as there
is a "William Smith College" in Geneva, NY. Sadly, they are the Herons, and not the men in black.
4. Just pick the favorites - In pools that don't give upset points this can work. After all, the team is a favorite for a
reason, they are supposed to win. I did a pool like this once before, accidentally, not realizing that we weren't
getting upset points, and proceeded to fill out the bracket like I would normally. Needless to say I wasn't thrilled
when I found out my obligatory 12 over 5 pick didn't earn me all that much. In normal pools do not pick just
favorites. The upset points are too important to skimp on. Make sure you take at least one 12 over 5 and at least
one 13 over a 4 if there are good match-ups for that. This years example would be North Dakota State over
Kansas. Kansas seems to lose every year in the first round (okay so maybe not last year), and North Dakota State
is in their first year of eligibility. It almost seems too perfect.
5. The guy who submits five brackets - Please don't be this guy. Every year he submits the most brackets, and one
of them is always very close to winning. Well of course that is the case. When you have four more brackets than
everyone else technically you have a four times greater chance to win. Submit two brackets at the most! One can
have some of the radicals upsets you foresee, and the other can be a more standard bracket. I hate when I see
people rooting for six different things to happen so that all of their brackets can stay alive. Just do one and be
content with it.
So which theory of those is the best? I have no idea. I have never won a pool, nor have I finished in the top 5 in the
eight years or so that I have been doing them. So if you want some advice not to take, here are some of the things
you will see on my 1 bracket this year:
Final Four: Louisville, Memphis, Pitt, UNC. Creative, I know.
12's over 5's: Arizona over Utah. Wisconsin over Florida St.
Upset pick that everyone else is on except for me: Western Kentucky over Illinois.
Teams I like to make small runs: WVU to the sweet 16. Washington and Villanova to the elite 8.
Winner: Pitt over Louisville in the finals.
Happy madness.