Let's get to the good stuff first. After the complete first round:
*The Daily Quickie Readers leader is 28-4.
*I am in the 37th percentile. (WTF?!)
*Obama is in the 97th percentile.
*If you used the National Bracket, you'd be in the 60th percentile.
*Yesterday was largely a dud, not just compared to Thursday but in an absolute sense. There were the two 10-7 upsets, but "10-7" is the new "9-over-8"; it's just not really an upset.
*Michigan St pushed to the finish by New Mexico St was intriguing, but didn't materialize as an actual upset. Obviously, Cornell is a great story -- but, again -- many saw it coming.
*Cal's win over Louisiville paired with Washington's win over Marquette affirms that the Pac-10 was able to nullify its entire crappy season, while helping to undermine the Big East.
*My biggest bracket whiff was picking Utah State over Texas A&M, compounded by the fact that I took Utah State to the Sweet 16. Ouch. I have 14 of 16 Sweet 16 teams left.
Today's Games, which will fill out half the Sweet 16: (My picks have a star -- 7 of the games have that team on my bracket; Ohio-Tennessee isn't, obviously, so I have to make a new day-of-game pick.)
1:00: 2 Villanova* vs. 10 St. Mary's. A true toss-up, considering the way Nova played against Robert Morris (and the way the Gaels played against Richmond). High upset potential.
3:20: 13 Murray St vs. 5 Butler*. Butler is better than Vanderbilt, and Murray St is going to find that out. But there's a reason Murray pulled the upset: Rebounding. And Butler's not big.
3:35: 14 Ohio* vs. 6 Tennessee. Well, I had Georgetown beating Ohio and Tennessee losing to San Diego St, so there's that. And Bruce Pearl's teams have been tough to match up with on that two-day turnaround. But Ohio looked REALLY good beating Georgetown. Would love to see this.
5:40: 9 Northern Iowa vs. 1 Kansas*. NIU will be a lot tougher to beat than Lehigh, but Kansas -- and all the 1-seeds -- have been buzz-saws so far.
5:45: 11 Old Dominion vs. 3 Baylor*. Baylor was the sexy pick to make a run, and it looks like a good call. ODU's early win over Notre Dame is tempered somewhat, now that we know the Big East uniformly stinks (except the regular-season and Tournament champs).
5:50: 11 Washington* vs. 3 New Mexico. My bracket looks terrible right now, but I can claim at least a minor moral victory if Washington wins, because I have them picked to get to the Sweet 16. I just don't buy New Mexico going on a deep run.
8:10: 7 BYU vs. 2 Kansas State*. Jimmer Frenette is a nationwide sensation, and the chance to watch him in action again will be fun to see. But Kansas State is a quantum leap better than Florida, and BYU is going to figure that out quickly.
8:15: 9 Wake Forest vs. 1 Kentucky*. I don't expect anything other than a UK rout. Wake has been playing with house money since that shot went down to carry them past Texas.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
NCAA Round 1, Day 2 Early: Zzz?
Well, compared to yesterday -- or even in an absolute sense -- this afternoon was a snoozer.
*Saved the worst for last: Utah State busted my Spokane-South. I had U.S. to the Sweet 16. Ugh.
*Honestly, who DIDN'T have Cornell? Not really an upset -- but totally awesome, nonetheless.
*I have Wisconsin to the Sweet 16, but was actively rooting for the Wofford upset. Oh well.
*Purdue deserves some credit, but not much. Purdue partisans have to justify a 4-seed, which means that they need to not just beat a short-handed Siena, but go to the Sweet 16. (I had Siena, dammit.)
*Everything else was mostly predictable or conventional -- seriously, did you really take Clemson?
*New York City is the worst market in the 1st round evening: We're stuck with Duke-Pine Bluff and Syracuse-Vermont, likely all the way through.
(We got Cornell and Siena in the afternoon, though, which was ideal. It's not like I don't have MMOD on my computer and iPhone anyway.)
How's your bracket?
-- D.S.
*Saved the worst for last: Utah State busted my Spokane-South. I had U.S. to the Sweet 16. Ugh.
*Honestly, who DIDN'T have Cornell? Not really an upset -- but totally awesome, nonetheless.
*I have Wisconsin to the Sweet 16, but was actively rooting for the Wofford upset. Oh well.
*Purdue deserves some credit, but not much. Purdue partisans have to justify a 4-seed, which means that they need to not just beat a short-handed Siena, but go to the Sweet 16. (I had Siena, dammit.)
*Everything else was mostly predictable or conventional -- seriously, did you really take Clemson?
*New York City is the worst market in the 1st round evening: We're stuck with Duke-Pine Bluff and Syracuse-Vermont, likely all the way through.
(We got Cornell and Siena in the afternoon, though, which was ideal. It's not like I don't have MMOD on my computer and iPhone anyway.)
How's your bracket?
-- D.S.
Quickie: Well THAT Was a Great Start
Let's get to the fun stuff first:
*After one day, not a single entrant in the Daily Quickie Readers group still has a perfect bracket.
*Of the millions of brackets in the ESPN.com Tournament Challenge, only 51 are still perfect.
*I went 9-7, with my worst miss Georgetown (to the Elite 8) and my best save Washington (to the Sweet 16).
*The National Bracket is in the 38th percentile; Barack Obama's bracket is in the 97th percentile.
*That was the single-best first day of the Tournament of all time. The afternoon was already ridiculous, then you add in the Ohio monster upset, the Northern Iowa long-distance finish and the wild Washington upset win.
*As I wrote here yesterday, then led in my SN column this morning, yesterday reinforces that "64" has nothing to do with why the Tournament is amazing. Yesterday did not affirm that the current format shouldn't be messed with; in fact, it probably proved that expanding it won't hurt the Tournament at all -- and can only offer more benefits.
More upsets. More buzzer-beaters. More bracket-watching. More ducking out of work. More shared moments.
That's what the most hard-line anti-expansionists don't get -- no one remembers the quality of the teams, or even the quality of the games. They remember upsets (or, in the case of Robert Morris, near-upsets) and they remember great finishes.
Doubling the number of 16-game days from 2 to 4 (by going from 64 to 96) seems like a pretty good way to get more of what we all essentially love about the Tournament.
Today's column includes a complete game-by-game preview of today -- I hope that yesterday was foreshadowing, not an anomaly. An indicator that the gap between 2s and 3s and 13s and 14s and 15s has narrowed to the point that any game is a toss-up.
Things slow down dramatically after today. Yes, 8 games tomorrow and 8 games Sunday will be fun, but it isn't nearly as exciting as the mid-afternoon workday frenzy of yesterday and today.
By Monday, the field will be 16 -- from yesterday's start, let's hope that it includes plenty of upstarts. Remember: Anything more than a 5-seed in the Sweet 16 should count as a Cinderella. Obviously a double-digit seed in the Sweet 16 is a real Cinderella, and if they don't come from a power conference, they can expect the full-blown Cindy treatment.
Complete column here. More later, reacting to the afternoon set of games.
-- D.S.
*After one day, not a single entrant in the Daily Quickie Readers group still has a perfect bracket.
*Of the millions of brackets in the ESPN.com Tournament Challenge, only 51 are still perfect.
*I went 9-7, with my worst miss Georgetown (to the Elite 8) and my best save Washington (to the Sweet 16).
*The National Bracket is in the 38th percentile; Barack Obama's bracket is in the 97th percentile.
*That was the single-best first day of the Tournament of all time. The afternoon was already ridiculous, then you add in the Ohio monster upset, the Northern Iowa long-distance finish and the wild Washington upset win.
*As I wrote here yesterday, then led in my SN column this morning, yesterday reinforces that "64" has nothing to do with why the Tournament is amazing. Yesterday did not affirm that the current format shouldn't be messed with; in fact, it probably proved that expanding it won't hurt the Tournament at all -- and can only offer more benefits.
More upsets. More buzzer-beaters. More bracket-watching. More ducking out of work. More shared moments.
That's what the most hard-line anti-expansionists don't get -- no one remembers the quality of the teams, or even the quality of the games. They remember upsets (or, in the case of Robert Morris, near-upsets) and they remember great finishes.
Doubling the number of 16-game days from 2 to 4 (by going from 64 to 96) seems like a pretty good way to get more of what we all essentially love about the Tournament.
Today's column includes a complete game-by-game preview of today -- I hope that yesterday was foreshadowing, not an anomaly. An indicator that the gap between 2s and 3s and 13s and 14s and 15s has narrowed to the point that any game is a toss-up.
Things slow down dramatically after today. Yes, 8 games tomorrow and 8 games Sunday will be fun, but it isn't nearly as exciting as the mid-afternoon workday frenzy of yesterday and today.
By Monday, the field will be 16 -- from yesterday's start, let's hope that it includes plenty of upstarts. Remember: Anything more than a 5-seed in the Sweet 16 should count as a Cinderella. Obviously a double-digit seed in the Sweet 16 is a real Cinderella, and if they don't come from a power conference, they can expect the full-blown Cindy treatment.
Complete column here. More later, reacting to the afternoon set of games.
-- D.S.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
NCAA Thursday Afternoon: Wow
What an afternoon of games. Wow. And, for me, the big takeaway is how much this validates the idea of expanding the Tournament -- or at least mitigating the hysterics so opposed to it.
The reason this afternoon was so terrific had nothing to do with the so-called "quality" of the teams. It had to do with:
*A lower seed beating a higher seed.
*A "no-name" beating a "name."
*Buzzer-beating finishes.
*Your judgment jeopardized/validated.
That it was "Murray State" or "Robert Morris" or "Vanderbilt" or "Villanova" -- it doesn't matter. 99 percent of fans who engage during the NCAA Tournament -- hell, 99 percent of college hoops fans who claim to love the sport -- had never seen Murray or Bobby Mo play.
What matters is that a "15" was beating a "2." Or that a "14" beat a "3." Or that you'd never heard of Murray State but heard of Vanderbilt. Or that this team won on a dramatic last-second shot. Or that your personal picks were right/wrong/whatever.
Expanding the Tournament doesn't change any of that. In fact, it multiplies it: Instead of two days of jam-packed games, upsets, buzzer-beaters and bracket affirmation, you get four days.
Expanding the Tournament might be all about the money, but it doesn't necessarily mean the idea is a bad one, when you remove the money and focus simply on the fan experience.
This is what the critics of expansion miss almost entirely. "Murray State" is a placeholder for any no-name team that wins on a buzzer-beater. "Old Dominion" is a placeholder for any lower seed that upsets a higher seed. "BYU" is a placeholder for a "have-not" beating a big-brand "have."
And "Look at me: I'm still 4-0!" or "Wow, if I had lost Villanova, my whole bracket would have been screwed, but I love it anyway!" has nothing to do with how many teams are in the tournament or what their pre-Tournament "quality" might be.
There is nothing inherent in expanding the Tournament to 96 teams that detracts from all of these basic elements of what makes the Tournament so amazing. In fact, it might just enhance it by giving us more.
That's what everyone seemed to be crying out for today: We love this. Give us more.
-- D.S.
The reason this afternoon was so terrific had nothing to do with the so-called "quality" of the teams. It had to do with:
*A lower seed beating a higher seed.
*A "no-name" beating a "name."
*Buzzer-beating finishes.
*Your judgment jeopardized/validated.
That it was "Murray State" or "Robert Morris" or "Vanderbilt" or "Villanova" -- it doesn't matter. 99 percent of fans who engage during the NCAA Tournament -- hell, 99 percent of college hoops fans who claim to love the sport -- had never seen Murray or Bobby Mo play.
What matters is that a "15" was beating a "2." Or that a "14" beat a "3." Or that you'd never heard of Murray State but heard of Vanderbilt. Or that this team won on a dramatic last-second shot. Or that your personal picks were right/wrong/whatever.
Expanding the Tournament doesn't change any of that. In fact, it multiplies it: Instead of two days of jam-packed games, upsets, buzzer-beaters and bracket affirmation, you get four days.
Expanding the Tournament might be all about the money, but it doesn't necessarily mean the idea is a bad one, when you remove the money and focus simply on the fan experience.
This is what the critics of expansion miss almost entirely. "Murray State" is a placeholder for any no-name team that wins on a buzzer-beater. "Old Dominion" is a placeholder for any lower seed that upsets a higher seed. "BYU" is a placeholder for a "have-not" beating a big-brand "have."
And "Look at me: I'm still 4-0!" or "Wow, if I had lost Villanova, my whole bracket would have been screwed, but I love it anyway!" has nothing to do with how many teams are in the tournament or what their pre-Tournament "quality" might be.
There is nothing inherent in expanding the Tournament to 96 teams that detracts from all of these basic elements of what makes the Tournament so amazing. In fact, it might just enhance it by giving us more.
That's what everyone seemed to be crying out for today: We love this. Give us more.
-- D.S.
On Florida's NCAA Tournament Return
It seems ironic that Florida could be the first team eliminated from the NCAA Tournament, given that the Gators haven't lost an NCAA Tournament game since March 2005.
Their 12-game winning streak is one shy of Duke's 13 straight from 91-93. But given Florida's brutal draw -- BYU is ripe for a Tournament win -- I think it ends this afternoon.
Because the "12-game winning streak" has, of course, the world's biggest caveat: They haven't played in the Tournament since they cut down the nets in 2007.
And this year's team is not that '07 mini-dynasty. That team is a memory -- albeit one that should continue to satisfy every Gator fan for decades, no matter how (or if) they do in the Tournament.
Obviously, I am rooting for Florida to win. But having watched enough of their games this season, I do not expect them to win. I did not pick them to win.
Then again, I didn't pick them to win in 2006 -- the exact opposite of the expectations I had for them in 2007, when it was "championship or failure."
My expectations this year couldn't be lower. A win would be improbable and most enjoyable.
But mostly, I want them to uphold the standard of of the team that created this current 12-game NCAA Tournament winning streak: Play with heart and make a game of it.
-- D.S.
Their 12-game winning streak is one shy of Duke's 13 straight from 91-93. But given Florida's brutal draw -- BYU is ripe for a Tournament win -- I think it ends this afternoon.
Because the "12-game winning streak" has, of course, the world's biggest caveat: They haven't played in the Tournament since they cut down the nets in 2007.
And this year's team is not that '07 mini-dynasty. That team is a memory -- albeit one that should continue to satisfy every Gator fan for decades, no matter how (or if) they do in the Tournament.Obviously, I am rooting for Florida to win. But having watched enough of their games this season, I do not expect them to win. I did not pick them to win.
Then again, I didn't pick them to win in 2006 -- the exact opposite of the expectations I had for them in 2007, when it was "championship or failure."
My expectations this year couldn't be lower. A win would be improbable and most enjoyable.
But mostly, I want them to uphold the standard of of the team that created this current 12-game NCAA Tournament winning streak: Play with heart and make a game of it.
-- D.S.
Quickie: First Thursday Is Here
Last chance to sign up for the Daily Quickie Readers group of the Tournament Challenge!
I am honored and thrilled that more than 300 of you have chosen to join the group this year -- with plenty of room for more! (It remains a source of pride for me that the Quickie Readers group total from 2006 -- more than 10,000 entries -- would have been the 11th-biggest group in the Tournament Challenge this year. I'm sure many of you were a part of that.)
Today's SN column has an annual tradition: The best quick-hit viewing guide you'll find, with each game of the day laid out -- by time, the only way that matters -- and complete with prediction and typically brief-yet-shallow analysis.
Here is the big point from the column: Today is precisely the reason why the hysterics about a 96-team Tournament are overblown. Anti-96ers continue to think that "dilution" would be a problem to people. And it might -- to the 99th percentile of sports fans, the ones who follow college hoops enough to pay close attention to it before March 1. Even most of those fans probably never saw Top 10 New Mexico play a regular-season game and are guessing if they can figure out Richmond-St. Mary's.
But everyone else really dives in after Selection Sunday. And today showcases why fans really care: They get a distraction from work during the day, they get to compete/gamble with their friends or co-workers. Hopefully, they get the rush of a buzzer-beater or upset. That's it.
College basketball's media intelligentsia don't like to hear that, because it offends their sensibilities -- not to mention diminishes their life's work and passion. But it's just that simple. And whether the pairing is Kansas-Kentucky or Richmond-St. Mary's, fans will watch because the game is on during the work day and you have basically gambled on it against your friends. There are plenty of lame NCAA Tournament games; fans remember buzzer-beaters and fans remember upsets. And it doesn't matter what the names are on the front of the jerseys, as long as the higher-seed beats the lower-seed or a team wins at the last second.
That's why last night, while watching the NIT, it was so clear to me: The only difference between no one caring about Northwestern-Rhode Island and everyone caring about Northwestern-Rhode Island is calling them "NIT" games vs. "NCAA Tournament" games.
If they were on an NCAA Tournament bracket and on at 2:30 in the afternoon on a work day -- ideally featuring some kind of down-to-the-wire finish -- fans would care. It's just that simple. And 32 more games -- two more workday 16-game diversions -- would be as enthusiastically welcomed as the 16-game workday diversions that happen today and tomorrow.
There's a lot more in today's SN column, including an analysis of Tebow's Pro Day workout, which did exactly what it had to do: It shifted the conversation from "his mechanics suck" to "his mechanics are improving." All he had to do was show improvement -- ironically, the bearish draftniks themselves are responsible for that absurdly low bar. After a month of focused work with tutors and experts, they couldn't NOT improve.
Oh, and be sure to check out the Obama bracket analysis I did for Newsweek.
Enjoy what will hopefully be a wild day of games!
-- D.S.
I am honored and thrilled that more than 300 of you have chosen to join the group this year -- with plenty of room for more! (It remains a source of pride for me that the Quickie Readers group total from 2006 -- more than 10,000 entries -- would have been the 11th-biggest group in the Tournament Challenge this year. I'm sure many of you were a part of that.)
Today's SN column has an annual tradition: The best quick-hit viewing guide you'll find, with each game of the day laid out -- by time, the only way that matters -- and complete with prediction and typically brief-yet-shallow analysis.
Here is the big point from the column: Today is precisely the reason why the hysterics about a 96-team Tournament are overblown. Anti-96ers continue to think that "dilution" would be a problem to people. And it might -- to the 99th percentile of sports fans, the ones who follow college hoops enough to pay close attention to it before March 1. Even most of those fans probably never saw Top 10 New Mexico play a regular-season game and are guessing if they can figure out Richmond-St. Mary's.
But everyone else really dives in after Selection Sunday. And today showcases why fans really care: They get a distraction from work during the day, they get to compete/gamble with their friends or co-workers. Hopefully, they get the rush of a buzzer-beater or upset. That's it.
College basketball's media intelligentsia don't like to hear that, because it offends their sensibilities -- not to mention diminishes their life's work and passion. But it's just that simple. And whether the pairing is Kansas-Kentucky or Richmond-St. Mary's, fans will watch because the game is on during the work day and you have basically gambled on it against your friends. There are plenty of lame NCAA Tournament games; fans remember buzzer-beaters and fans remember upsets. And it doesn't matter what the names are on the front of the jerseys, as long as the higher-seed beats the lower-seed or a team wins at the last second.
That's why last night, while watching the NIT, it was so clear to me: The only difference between no one caring about Northwestern-Rhode Island and everyone caring about Northwestern-Rhode Island is calling them "NIT" games vs. "NCAA Tournament" games.
If they were on an NCAA Tournament bracket and on at 2:30 in the afternoon on a work day -- ideally featuring some kind of down-to-the-wire finish -- fans would care. It's just that simple. And 32 more games -- two more workday 16-game diversions -- would be as enthusiastically welcomed as the 16-game workday diversions that happen today and tomorrow.
There's a lot more in today's SN column, including an analysis of Tebow's Pro Day workout, which did exactly what it had to do: It shifted the conversation from "his mechanics suck" to "his mechanics are improving." All he had to do was show improvement -- ironically, the bearish draftniks themselves are responsible for that absurdly low bar. After a month of focused work with tutors and experts, they couldn't NOT improve.
Oh, and be sure to check out the Obama bracket analysis I did for Newsweek.
Enjoy what will hopefully be a wild day of games!
-- D.S.
2010 NCAA Picks: Can't Get Worse!
Let's get on the record:
After last year's debacle -- finishing in the 18th percentile -- I had "bracket-bypass" surgery: No more gorging on unfulfilling upsets.
After last year's debacle -- finishing in the 18th percentile -- I had "bracket-bypass" surgery: No more gorging on unfulfilling upsets.
If Kansas doesn't win it, at least I won't fail alone. For the record, my picks:
Midwest 1st: KU, UNLV, Mich St, Maryland, San Diego St, G'town, Okla St, Ohio St. 16: KU, Mich St, G'town, Ohio St. Final: KANSAS over G'town.
West 1st: Cuse, Zaga, Butler, Vandy, Xavier, Pitt, BYU, K-St. 16: Cuse, Butler, Xavier, K-St. Final: SYRACUSE over Xavier.
East 1st: Kent'y, Texas, Cornell, Wisco, Washington, New Mexico, Mizzou, West VA. 16: KY, Wisco, Washington, WVU. Final: KENTUCKY over WVU.
Midwest 1st: Duke, L'ville, Utah St., Siena, ND, Baylor, Richmond, Nova. 16: Duke, Utah St, Baylor, Nova. Final: VILLANOVA over Duke.
Champ: Kansas over Kentucky.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Daily Quickie Readers Bracket Challenge
Another reminder to sign up for the Daily Quickie Readers group of the Tournament Challenge. Now with Obama's bracket included in the field!
03/17 Quickie: Obama Bracket and More
Today is going to be a terrific day.
President Obama's NCAA Tournament bracket gets released, which last year instantly became one of my favorite March Madness traditions.
I'm going to talk to my 3-year-old's preschool class to get their picks for a half-dozen of the most contentious bracket picks.
Meanwhile, I'm tracking Tim Tebow's Pro Day in Gainesville, which goes this morning and should -- like everything else Tebow-related -- dominate NFL news today.
Oh, and I've got my fantasy baseball league draft at 5:30 today, and I'm scrambling to get caught up in time to build on last season's breakthrough middle-of-the-pack finish.
Not bad, considering that tomorrow and Friday are the best sports days of the year -- and today should really be about hanging out (and maybe clearing your work schedule for tomorrow).
Today's SN column digs into Obama's Final Four, Tebow's Pro Day, the Play-In Game (Woot: Pine Bluff!), the NIT (1-seed goes down in the 1st round!) and more. Check it out here.
Much more coming later today.
-- D.S.
President Obama's NCAA Tournament bracket gets released, which last year instantly became one of my favorite March Madness traditions.
I'm going to talk to my 3-year-old's preschool class to get their picks for a half-dozen of the most contentious bracket picks.
Meanwhile, I'm tracking Tim Tebow's Pro Day in Gainesville, which goes this morning and should -- like everything else Tebow-related -- dominate NFL news today.
Oh, and I've got my fantasy baseball league draft at 5:30 today, and I'm scrambling to get caught up in time to build on last season's breakthrough middle-of-the-pack finish.
Not bad, considering that tomorrow and Friday are the best sports days of the year -- and today should really be about hanging out (and maybe clearing your work schedule for tomorrow).
Today's SN column digs into Obama's Final Four, Tebow's Pro Day, the Play-In Game (Woot: Pine Bluff!), the NIT (1-seed goes down in the 1st round!) and more. Check it out here.
Much more coming later today.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Obama Bracket Final Four Announced
President Obama has released the Final Four on his bracket: Kansas, Kentucky, Kansas State and Villanova. ESPN will have the entire bracket tomorrow morning.
For some context, Obama's bracket in 2009 out-picked 80 percent of the country.
What can we read into his Final Four? I'm saving it for tomorrow's SN column, but Obama is fully on board with the KU and John Wall bandwagons and obviously (a) doubts Duke (woo!) and (b) doubts the health of Onuaku as a linchpin of a Syracuse run to Indianapolis.
-- D.S.
For some context, Obama's bracket in 2009 out-picked 80 percent of the country.
What can we read into his Final Four? I'm saving it for tomorrow's SN column, but Obama is fully on board with the KU and John Wall bandwagons and obviously (a) doubts Duke (woo!) and (b) doubts the health of Onuaku as a linchpin of a Syracuse run to Indianapolis.
-- D.S.
03/16 Quickie: Bracket Self-Doubt
Be sure to enter the Daily Quickie Readers Tournament Challenge group!
There is something comforting about the rhythm of the first week of the NCAA Tournament. The brackets come out Sunday night. There is a flood of info on Monday as you make your picks. Then, Tuesday: The self-doubt.
The lead of today's SN column highlights my biggest doubts, region-by-region, on my bracket:
*Georgetown over Ohio State
*Xavier to the Elite Eight
*Washington to the Sweet 16
*My knee-jerk Duke antipathy, which blinds me to the arguably reasonable notion that they are headed to the Final Four.
I still feel better about this bracket than any I have filled out in years -- hmm, perhaps aside from the year that Florida won its second title and I had no doubt they would win it again as I filled out my bracket.
On the other hand, aside from those few picks above, my bracket lacks those stunning reaches that make the Tournament exciting. But I have gotten over the idea of proving how smart I am through longshot Tournament bracket-picking; I'll settle for feeling middle-of-the-pack right.
More you'll find in today's column:
Check out the entire column here. More later.
-- D.S.
There is something comforting about the rhythm of the first week of the NCAA Tournament. The brackets come out Sunday night. There is a flood of info on Monday as you make your picks. Then, Tuesday: The self-doubt.
The lead of today's SN column highlights my biggest doubts, region-by-region, on my bracket:
*Georgetown over Ohio State
*Xavier to the Elite Eight
*Washington to the Sweet 16
*My knee-jerk Duke antipathy, which blinds me to the arguably reasonable notion that they are headed to the Final Four.
I still feel better about this bracket than any I have filled out in years -- hmm, perhaps aside from the year that Florida won its second title and I had no doubt they would win it again as I filled out my bracket.
On the other hand, aside from those few picks above, my bracket lacks those stunning reaches that make the Tournament exciting. But I have gotten over the idea of proving how smart I am through longshot Tournament bracket-picking; I'll settle for feeling middle-of-the-pack right.
More you'll find in today's column:
- My annual homage to the Play-In Game!
- Um, should we worry about the Cuse?
- Brady Quinn is delusional.
- Tiger/Masters boffo ratings? Obviously.
- Andre apologizes: He knew better.
- Cliff Lee is kind of competitive.
- I still believe in the Rockets.
- Gilbert is contrite -- let him back.
- Putting "peephole" into prison context.
Check out the entire column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Yahoo Acquiring Citizen Sports?
Coincidentally timed to my WSJ column earlier today, the WSJ's Kara Swisher floats a really interesting rumor: That Yahoo is about to acquire a major sports company, and that Citizen Sports seems like the most likely fit.
First of all, I know Jeff Ma and the Citizen Sports group, and they are brilliant, terrific people creating an absolutely phenomenal product -- they are at the leading edge. They have the Sportacular iPhone app, but for their best stuff, go to Facebook, where they understand the space as well as any company out there, including Zynga.
And what they do -- particularly in social media -- would fit snugly in Yahoo's portfolio of sports products. It's a complement -- and something that keeps pace with ESPN in the social media space.
But there's more: In the same way that Carol Bartz recognized that Jamie Mottram's sports-blog strategy was a template for other categories (News, Entertainment, etc.), the Citizen Sports platform capabilities can be leveraged for way more than sports. And it will be.
On the one hand, Citizen Sports would help Yahoo connect with their users in new and different and powerful ways. On the other, of course, there is tremendous revenue potential to unlock -- either with brand sponsorships or a la carte mobile applications.
Credit Yahoo for dipping into start-up sports media to help the company grow. And Citizen Sports would be a hell of a smart acquisition -- the $50 million Swisher is talking about seems like a great price.
I'm surprised that AOL didn't pursue this more aggressively, because it is a similarly good fit for what AOL is trying to do, esp. at that price.
Tracking, but all eyes on Carol Bartz at the World Sports Congress on Wednesday in Yahoo's LA backyard.
-- D.S.
First of all, I know Jeff Ma and the Citizen Sports group, and they are brilliant, terrific people creating an absolutely phenomenal product -- they are at the leading edge. They have the Sportacular iPhone app, but for their best stuff, go to Facebook, where they understand the space as well as any company out there, including Zynga.
And what they do -- particularly in social media -- would fit snugly in Yahoo's portfolio of sports products. It's a complement -- and something that keeps pace with ESPN in the social media space.
But there's more: In the same way that Carol Bartz recognized that Jamie Mottram's sports-blog strategy was a template for other categories (News, Entertainment, etc.), the Citizen Sports platform capabilities can be leveraged for way more than sports. And it will be.
On the one hand, Citizen Sports would help Yahoo connect with their users in new and different and powerful ways. On the other, of course, there is tremendous revenue potential to unlock -- either with brand sponsorships or a la carte mobile applications.
Credit Yahoo for dipping into start-up sports media to help the company grow. And Citizen Sports would be a hell of a smart acquisition -- the $50 million Swisher is talking about seems like a great price.
I'm surprised that AOL didn't pursue this more aggressively, because it is a similarly good fit for what AOL is trying to do, esp. at that price.
Tracking, but all eyes on Carol Bartz at the World Sports Congress on Wednesday in Yahoo's LA backyard.
-- D.S.
Picking NCAA Brackets: Kansas, Duh
I just filed my annual column making my bracket picks for the Wall Street Journal. After last year's worst-ever 12th-percentile finish, I explained that my system has gone through an overhaul -- the equivalent of gastric-bypass surgery (uh, "bracket-bypass surgery?").
No more empty calories and super-sized portions, represented by too-clever-by-half over-thinking. Portion control.
I'll post it when it is live, but I'm ready to reveal my bracket now, a sneak peek for DS.com:
Champ: Kansas
Final Four: Kansas over Syracuse, Kentucky over Villanova.
Midwest:
1st Rd: 1 Kansas, 8 UNLV, 5 Mich St, 4 Maryland
11 San Diego St, 3 G'town, 7 Oklahoma St, 2 Ohio St.
Regional: Kansas, Michigan St, G'town, Ohio State.
Midwest champ: Kansas over G'town.
Analysis: Chalk (except SDSU over Tennessee). 5 Mich St over 4 Maryland isn't an upset. 3 G'town over 2 Ohio St isn't an upset (but it is iffy). Yes, Kansas has a tough path, but they are also clearly the best team in the country. This region is rugged but predictable.
West:
1st Rd: 1 Cuse, 8 Gonzaga, 5 Butler, 4 Vandy
6 Xavier, 3 Pitt, 7 BYU, 2 Kansas State
Regional: Cuse, Butler, Xavier, K-State
West champ: Cuse over Xavier
Analysis: Chalk 1st round. I don't consider Xavier over Pitt an upset, if you know X-Men's Tourney history. (Same with Xavier over K-State. OK, so I'm in the tank for Xavier.) Yes, BYU over Florida, ending the Gators' NCAA Tournament winning streak at 12.
East:
1st Rd: 1 Kentucky, 8 Texas, 12 Cornell, 4 Wisco
11 Washington, 3 New Mex, 10 Mizzou, 2 WVU
Regional: Kentucky, Wisco, Washington, WVU
East champ: Kentucky over West Virginia
Analysis: I'm suckered for Cornell (Temple is under-seeded). Wisconsin will give Kentucky its toughest game. I feel OK not buying New Mexico; but I can envision great regret taking Washington, won't I?
South:
1st Rd: 1 Duke, 9 L'ville, 12 Utah St, 13 Siena
6 Notre Dame, 3 Baylor, 7 Richmond, 2 Nova
Regional: Duke, Utah St, Baylor, Nova
South champ: Nova over Duke.
Analysis: I couldn't take Duke to win the region. You knew that. I am obsessed with the Spokane sub-region: Purdue is the worst over-seed since Cincinnati as a 1 in 2000, and Utah State will have huge "home-ish" support in Spokane. I may be a year too late on Nova, and merely trying to make up for taking UCLA over Nova in the 2nd round from last year: My debacle.
OK, let's get to your picks. Don't forget to get into the Daily Quickie Readers Tournament Challenge. The original returns!
-- D.S.
No more empty calories and super-sized portions, represented by too-clever-by-half over-thinking. Portion control.
I'll post it when it is live, but I'm ready to reveal my bracket now, a sneak peek for DS.com:
Champ: Kansas
Final Four: Kansas over Syracuse, Kentucky over Villanova.
Midwest:
1st Rd: 1 Kansas, 8 UNLV, 5 Mich St, 4 Maryland
11 San Diego St, 3 G'town, 7 Oklahoma St, 2 Ohio St.
Regional: Kansas, Michigan St, G'town, Ohio State.
Midwest champ: Kansas over G'town.
Analysis: Chalk (except SDSU over Tennessee). 5 Mich St over 4 Maryland isn't an upset. 3 G'town over 2 Ohio St isn't an upset (but it is iffy). Yes, Kansas has a tough path, but they are also clearly the best team in the country. This region is rugged but predictable.
West:
1st Rd: 1 Cuse, 8 Gonzaga, 5 Butler, 4 Vandy
6 Xavier, 3 Pitt, 7 BYU, 2 Kansas State
Regional: Cuse, Butler, Xavier, K-State
West champ: Cuse over Xavier
Analysis: Chalk 1st round. I don't consider Xavier over Pitt an upset, if you know X-Men's Tourney history. (Same with Xavier over K-State. OK, so I'm in the tank for Xavier.) Yes, BYU over Florida, ending the Gators' NCAA Tournament winning streak at 12.
East:
1st Rd: 1 Kentucky, 8 Texas, 12 Cornell, 4 Wisco
11 Washington, 3 New Mex, 10 Mizzou, 2 WVU
Regional: Kentucky, Wisco, Washington, WVU
East champ: Kentucky over West Virginia
Analysis: I'm suckered for Cornell (Temple is under-seeded). Wisconsin will give Kentucky its toughest game. I feel OK not buying New Mexico; but I can envision great regret taking Washington, won't I?
South:
1st Rd: 1 Duke, 9 L'ville, 12 Utah St, 13 Siena
6 Notre Dame, 3 Baylor, 7 Richmond, 2 Nova
Regional: Duke, Utah St, Baylor, Nova
South champ: Nova over Duke.
Analysis: I couldn't take Duke to win the region. You knew that. I am obsessed with the Spokane sub-region: Purdue is the worst over-seed since Cincinnati as a 1 in 2000, and Utah State will have huge "home-ish" support in Spokane. I may be a year too late on Nova, and merely trying to make up for taking UCLA over Nova in the 2nd round from last year: My debacle.
OK, let's get to your picks. Don't forget to get into the Daily Quickie Readers Tournament Challenge. The original returns!
-- D.S.
NCAA National Bracket: Early Look
Longtime readers know that I look at the "National Bracket" - the aggregation of all bracket picks - for "wisdom of the crowd" clues. In very early returns, there are few notables:
In the 1st round, there is only 1 upset: Georgia Tech over Oklahoma State. (Louisville over Cal doesn't count.)
In the 2nd round, there are two upsets, but not really: 5 Michigan State over 4 Maryland and 5 Texas A&M over (over-seeded) 4 Purdue. Both are by 54-46 percentages.
From there, the bracket is all chalk. The closest there is to an upset is Ohio State over Georgetown by a 51-49 polling margin. But, again: Chalk rules.
The National Bracket always closely correlates to the seeding, so don't look for much unconventional thinking.
Then again, if you had used the National Bracket last year, you would have outperformed 88 percent of all brackets. So there's that.
-- D.S.
In the 1st round, there is only 1 upset: Georgia Tech over Oklahoma State. (Louisville over Cal doesn't count.)
In the 2nd round, there are two upsets, but not really: 5 Michigan State over 4 Maryland and 5 Texas A&M over (over-seeded) 4 Purdue. Both are by 54-46 percentages.
From there, the bracket is all chalk. The closest there is to an upset is Ohio State over Georgetown by a 51-49 polling margin. But, again: Chalk rules.
The National Bracket always closely correlates to the seeding, so don't look for much unconventional thinking.
Then again, if you had used the National Bracket last year, you would have outperformed 88 percent of all brackets. So there's that.
-- D.S.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Analyzing the NCAA Bracket
It's Sunday night and I've already filed my "Monday morning" column to Sporting News -- no need to wait: The entire thing is about the bracket, and within a couple hours, I knew how I was thinking about it.
I'm also putting together my annual take-you-through-my-thought-process column for the Wall Street Journal, so I don't want to "spoil" that, but here's the gist:
I'm not going to screw things up like I did last year, when I tried to be all cutesy and show how smart I was. Occam's Razor, my friends: Kansas over Kentucky, and I ain't looking back.
Much more on this in a bit, but the only things I'm sticking with are: (1) No matter what their seed, Duke will underperform. That they are a 1-seed -- and that they are on a collision course with Villanova, a movie we saw last year -- doesn't change that.
And (2) I cannot understand how Purdue earns a 4-seed. You cannot go with "resume" or "body of work" when so much of that was wrapped up in a player who is not available, and all evidence we have is that the team is not very good. Purdue losing to Siena will be a very trendy pick, and I probably will not be able to resist it -- given that even if Purdue beats Siena (or even beats the Texas A&M-Utah State winner), they ain't getting further. But I'm betting on the former.
Here we go: I'm already slipping down the rabbit hole. I could spend the next three hours writing out commentary on everything I'm thinking right now about the bracket. I'll post my Sporting News link as soon as it's ready, and otherwise will chime in with more later Monday.
This really is the best few days of the sports year, even these 72 hours before anything happens on the court. Enjoy it! How's YOUR bracket look?
-- D.S.
I'm also putting together my annual take-you-through-my-thought-process column for the Wall Street Journal, so I don't want to "spoil" that, but here's the gist:
I'm not going to screw things up like I did last year, when I tried to be all cutesy and show how smart I was. Occam's Razor, my friends: Kansas over Kentucky, and I ain't looking back.
Much more on this in a bit, but the only things I'm sticking with are: (1) No matter what their seed, Duke will underperform. That they are a 1-seed -- and that they are on a collision course with Villanova, a movie we saw last year -- doesn't change that.
And (2) I cannot understand how Purdue earns a 4-seed. You cannot go with "resume" or "body of work" when so much of that was wrapped up in a player who is not available, and all evidence we have is that the team is not very good. Purdue losing to Siena will be a very trendy pick, and I probably will not be able to resist it -- given that even if Purdue beats Siena (or even beats the Texas A&M-Utah State winner), they ain't getting further. But I'm betting on the former.
Here we go: I'm already slipping down the rabbit hole. I could spend the next three hours writing out commentary on everything I'm thinking right now about the bracket. I'll post my Sporting News link as soon as it's ready, and otherwise will chime in with more later Monday.
This really is the best few days of the sports year, even these 72 hours before anything happens on the court. Enjoy it! How's YOUR bracket look?
-- D.S.
Daily Quickie Readers Bracket Challenge
The 2010 NCAA Tournament Bracket is out, so take one of your multiple entries and be sure to join the Daily Quickie Readers group of the Tournament Challenge.
More in a bit.
More in a bit.
Selection Sunday (Bubble) Quickie
Countdown to 6 p.m. There are 1-2 at-large bids in play (between yesterday morning and today, two were securely claimed by UTEP and Utah St, which both lost in their respective conference finals).
Question: Did Minnesota earn its way to an at-large bid, even if they lose to Ohio State? (And if they DO beat Ohio State, which team on the Bubble definitely loses out?)
All the bracket projections seem to indicate that Mississippi State has not yet earned an at-large bid, despite beating Florida and Vandy on back-to-back days.
Speaking of Florida, the Gators seem to be that team that is most tenuously on (or off) the Bubble. (Illinois might be, too.)
Know who is really hating life? Akron. Had a chance to win their way in and lost to Ohio.
Of yesterday's Bubble teams who lost, Cal is still in -- despite the Pac-10 being terrible this year, their RPI is Top 25.
UNLV should still be in -- congrats to San Diego State, which started the week as a solid "out" and not only earned an at-large invite, but got the auto-bid.
Xavier: Definitely still in. Have been locks for weeks. (Richmond is a lock, too, even if they lose to Temple in the final.)
Georgia Tech is definitely in, even if they lose to Duke today.
Speaking of losers, it is going to be fascinating to see where Purdue gets seeded: Resume vs. reality. They are obviously not the same team they were with Hummel.
Let's review the action at the margin. If you assume Utah St and Georgia Tech are definitely in, let's call it 2 spots for these teams:
VA Tech
Florida
Illinois
Ole Miss
Mississippi St
Minnesota
Obviously, if Mississippi State and/or Minnesota win, then it is likely that Florida, VA Tech, Illinois and Ole Miss are out.
If MSU and Minnesota lose, I think it comes down to VA Tech, Florida and Illinois for 2 spots. Illinois' RPI is in the 70s; VA Tech played a PATHETIC schedule; Florida couldn't win when it mattered most.
Of the three, I could see the committee taking Illinois and Florida, punishing VA Tech for padding its schedule with terrible teams and rewarding Illinois and Florida for putting together tougher schedules.
As usual, I don't think anyone -- aside from that team's fans -- is going to cry or gripe about their team being left out. All had their chance to win 1 or 2 more games to get themselves securely in the field, and didn't.
One eye on Minnesota, one eye on Mississippi State. But otherwise, let's get to 6 p.m. already!
-- D.S.
Question: Did Minnesota earn its way to an at-large bid, even if they lose to Ohio State? (And if they DO beat Ohio State, which team on the Bubble definitely loses out?)
All the bracket projections seem to indicate that Mississippi State has not yet earned an at-large bid, despite beating Florida and Vandy on back-to-back days.
Speaking of Florida, the Gators seem to be that team that is most tenuously on (or off) the Bubble. (Illinois might be, too.)
Know who is really hating life? Akron. Had a chance to win their way in and lost to Ohio.
Of yesterday's Bubble teams who lost, Cal is still in -- despite the Pac-10 being terrible this year, their RPI is Top 25.
UNLV should still be in -- congrats to San Diego State, which started the week as a solid "out" and not only earned an at-large invite, but got the auto-bid.
Xavier: Definitely still in. Have been locks for weeks. (Richmond is a lock, too, even if they lose to Temple in the final.)
Georgia Tech is definitely in, even if they lose to Duke today.
Speaking of losers, it is going to be fascinating to see where Purdue gets seeded: Resume vs. reality. They are obviously not the same team they were with Hummel.
Let's review the action at the margin. If you assume Utah St and Georgia Tech are definitely in, let's call it 2 spots for these teams:
VA Tech
Florida
Illinois
Ole Miss
Mississippi St
Minnesota
Obviously, if Mississippi State and/or Minnesota win, then it is likely that Florida, VA Tech, Illinois and Ole Miss are out.
If MSU and Minnesota lose, I think it comes down to VA Tech, Florida and Illinois for 2 spots. Illinois' RPI is in the 70s; VA Tech played a PATHETIC schedule; Florida couldn't win when it mattered most.
Of the three, I could see the committee taking Illinois and Florida, punishing VA Tech for padding its schedule with terrible teams and rewarding Illinois and Florida for putting together tougher schedules.
As usual, I don't think anyone -- aside from that team's fans -- is going to cry or gripe about their team being left out. All had their chance to win 1 or 2 more games to get themselves securely in the field, and didn't.
One eye on Minnesota, one eye on Mississippi State. But otherwise, let's get to 6 p.m. already!
-- D.S.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Saturday (Bubble) Quickie
If I was on the Selection Committee, I would evaluate things like this on the Bubble this morning:
IN, for sure:
San Diego St
UNLV
Illinois
Georgia Tech
Washington/Cal loser
MAYBE:
VA Tech (apparently, a lock)
Ole Miss (apparently, a lock)
Florida (apparently, a lock)
Rhode Island (can play itself in with a win over Temple?)
Mississippi State (apparently screwed)
Minnesota (what if they beat Purdue?)
OUT:
Dayton
I don't know what to do with that SEC trio on the "Maybe" list. Ole Miss and Florida were both in, heading into yesterday. Both lost. Ole Miss was probably supposed to lose (vs. Tennessee in Nashville?) But Florida-Mississippi State was really a "play-in" situation; it is very easy for the Committee to judge two Bubble teams when they play head-to-head.
It's hard for me to laud San Diego State and UNLV for winning huge, must-win games against better teams and not smack Florida for choking when it matters most. All "bracketologist" stuff suggests Florida is still in, but it wouldn't surprise me if MSU leap-frogged them. (And yet the leading bracket projection aggregator has MSU out and not even close.)
Not many Bubble teams left that can do something to help themselves go from "out" to "in" today. Rhode Island, playing Temple. Mississippi State, apparently, needs another win in the SEC. Minnesota may have to do more than just beat Purdue today.
Every other at-large spot seems accounted for.
-- D.S.
IN, for sure:
San Diego St
UNLV
Illinois
Georgia Tech
Washington/Cal loser
MAYBE:
VA Tech (apparently, a lock)
Ole Miss (apparently, a lock)
Florida (apparently, a lock)
Rhode Island (can play itself in with a win over Temple?)
Mississippi State (apparently screwed)
Minnesota (what if they beat Purdue?)
OUT:
Dayton
I don't know what to do with that SEC trio on the "Maybe" list. Ole Miss and Florida were both in, heading into yesterday. Both lost. Ole Miss was probably supposed to lose (vs. Tennessee in Nashville?) But Florida-Mississippi State was really a "play-in" situation; it is very easy for the Committee to judge two Bubble teams when they play head-to-head.
It's hard for me to laud San Diego State and UNLV for winning huge, must-win games against better teams and not smack Florida for choking when it matters most. All "bracketologist" stuff suggests Florida is still in, but it wouldn't surprise me if MSU leap-frogged them. (And yet the leading bracket projection aggregator has MSU out and not even close.)
Not many Bubble teams left that can do something to help themselves go from "out" to "in" today. Rhode Island, playing Temple. Mississippi State, apparently, needs another win in the SEC. Minnesota may have to do more than just beat Purdue today.
Every other at-large spot seems accounted for.
-- D.S.
Friday, March 12, 2010
03/12 Quickie: Bracket Already Busted
Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Quickie Readers group of the Tournament Challenge!
Last March, I set a new low for worst bracket performance of my life -- it was epically bad. Heading into this year, my feeling was: Well, at least things can't get worse!
I find new ways to undercut myself: This year, I have been extremely bullish on Syracuse winning it all -- partly because I can't resist avoiding taking the two big favorites, Kansas and Kentucky. And partly because I really do think Syracuse can win it all.
Then yesterday, they lose their 2nd straight -- but lost Onuaku to a knee injury that will probably not prohibit him from playing in the NCAA Tournament, but certainly combines with the losses to shake my confidence in taking Syracuse all the way. Cripes, I can't catch a break on this.
Nevertheless, I'm totally locked in to college basketball right now -- with three days until Selection Sunday, you probably are, too. Today's SN column starts with my Syracuse debacle, but then gets into some serious nitty-gritty at the periphery of the Bubble.
My favorite part of today's schedule: De facto "play-in" games, in which if a Bubble team wins, they're in, and if they don't, they're out. The classic: San Diego State. But put Illinois in there, too, along with Ole Miss and Mississippi State.
After last night, I think Florida is in (even if they lose to Mississippi State). Memphis is out (and I think St. John's should break the bank to try to lure Memphis coach Josh Pastner to NYC), as is UAB. Arizona State is probably out, too, after losing to Stanford in the godawful Pac-10. (Anyone else totally want to see UCLA run the table and win the league's auto-bid?)
Here is one other thing: I never would have believed that Northwestern could reach 20 wins in a season and not even REMOTELY be in the Bubble discussion. Not even a pity mention. The sorry part is that if they had gotten back even a single win from the four combined losses to Iowa, Indiana and Penn State (twice!), they would definitely be in the discussion.
I have a personal rooting interest today: Lafayette over Lehigh, because Lafayette starts Mike Gruner, who was the point guard on my high school's state-title winning basketball team five years ago (long after I was gone, but a huge source of pride).
I get this sense that even though I'm immersed in college hoops, the lead story of the morning probably should have been Tiger reportedly returning to golf for the Masters, which will be the most-watched tournament (and biggest s#!t show) in the history of golf.
Plus: If I get any say in the matter, can LaDainian Tomlinson come to New York?
Finally: I am actually bummed that Gilbert Arenas is changing his number from 0 to 6. "0" came to define Arenas as much as any number has ever defined a player. It was his brand. That things are so bad that he has to abandon that is sad. And even if he IS going to change his number, why change it to the number that LEBRON is changing his number to? Agent Zero: Stick with Zero.
Complete SN column here -- it will get you up to speed on everything college hoops, and more. More later.
-- D.S.
Last March, I set a new low for worst bracket performance of my life -- it was epically bad. Heading into this year, my feeling was: Well, at least things can't get worse!
I find new ways to undercut myself: This year, I have been extremely bullish on Syracuse winning it all -- partly because I can't resist avoiding taking the two big favorites, Kansas and Kentucky. And partly because I really do think Syracuse can win it all.
Then yesterday, they lose their 2nd straight -- but lost Onuaku to a knee injury that will probably not prohibit him from playing in the NCAA Tournament, but certainly combines with the losses to shake my confidence in taking Syracuse all the way. Cripes, I can't catch a break on this.
Nevertheless, I'm totally locked in to college basketball right now -- with three days until Selection Sunday, you probably are, too. Today's SN column starts with my Syracuse debacle, but then gets into some serious nitty-gritty at the periphery of the Bubble.
My favorite part of today's schedule: De facto "play-in" games, in which if a Bubble team wins, they're in, and if they don't, they're out. The classic: San Diego State. But put Illinois in there, too, along with Ole Miss and Mississippi State.
After last night, I think Florida is in (even if they lose to Mississippi State). Memphis is out (and I think St. John's should break the bank to try to lure Memphis coach Josh Pastner to NYC), as is UAB. Arizona State is probably out, too, after losing to Stanford in the godawful Pac-10. (Anyone else totally want to see UCLA run the table and win the league's auto-bid?)
Here is one other thing: I never would have believed that Northwestern could reach 20 wins in a season and not even REMOTELY be in the Bubble discussion. Not even a pity mention. The sorry part is that if they had gotten back even a single win from the four combined losses to Iowa, Indiana and Penn State (twice!), they would definitely be in the discussion.
I have a personal rooting interest today: Lafayette over Lehigh, because Lafayette starts Mike Gruner, who was the point guard on my high school's state-title winning basketball team five years ago (long after I was gone, but a huge source of pride).
I get this sense that even though I'm immersed in college hoops, the lead story of the morning probably should have been Tiger reportedly returning to golf for the Masters, which will be the most-watched tournament (and biggest s#!t show) in the history of golf.
Plus: If I get any say in the matter, can LaDainian Tomlinson come to New York?
Finally: I am actually bummed that Gilbert Arenas is changing his number from 0 to 6. "0" came to define Arenas as much as any number has ever defined a player. It was his brand. That things are so bad that he has to abandon that is sad. And even if he IS going to change his number, why change it to the number that LEBRON is changing his number to? Agent Zero: Stick with Zero.
Complete SN column here -- it will get you up to speed on everything college hoops, and more. More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
03/11 Quickie: Bubble, Big East, Big Ben
Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Quickie Readers group of the Tournament Challenge!
The early part of Championship Week is interesting -- I love the auto-bid games out of one-bid leagues, like that wild comeback by Montana over Weber State last night.
But things get materially interesting on/around the Bubble starting today. Seton Hall seeing any NCAA hopes pop yesterday vs. Notre Dame was an appetizer. (Um: Louisville...WTF?)
In today's SN column, I lay out the other Bubble teams with something to win -- or lose -- today: Florida. Georgia Tech. San Diego State. Memphis. Arizona State and Washington, frankly.
Tomorrow, it gets even more crazy. Most at-large spots are clinched, obviously, but at the margins, teams' seasons are on the line today and tomorrow.
(The Big East quarters, meanwhile, are typically ridiculous: 7 of the 8 quarterfinalists are NCAA Tournament teams, and the 8th just happens to be playing a grudge match against its old coach.)
Today and tomorrow are good appetizers for a week from today and tomorrow -- can you believe that the First Thursday/First Friday is only a week away? Best two days of the sports year.
More you'll find in today's column:
*NFL's most offseason improved: Ravens?
*Big Ben admits to... what, exactly?
*More bad symbolism for the Celtics.
*Tebow's Wonderlic 22 (see Teblog).
*I love "floating realignment."
Complete column here. More later. Oh, and I taped the KSK podcast last night as a guest. Should be up later today over there. I don't think I said anything too ridiculous, although I made the first public pronouncement that I think Tim Tebow won't be a 1st-round pick. (I know.)
-- D.S.
The early part of Championship Week is interesting -- I love the auto-bid games out of one-bid leagues, like that wild comeback by Montana over Weber State last night.
But things get materially interesting on/around the Bubble starting today. Seton Hall seeing any NCAA hopes pop yesterday vs. Notre Dame was an appetizer. (Um: Louisville...WTF?)
In today's SN column, I lay out the other Bubble teams with something to win -- or lose -- today: Florida. Georgia Tech. San Diego State. Memphis. Arizona State and Washington, frankly.
Tomorrow, it gets even more crazy. Most at-large spots are clinched, obviously, but at the margins, teams' seasons are on the line today and tomorrow.
(The Big East quarters, meanwhile, are typically ridiculous: 7 of the 8 quarterfinalists are NCAA Tournament teams, and the 8th just happens to be playing a grudge match against its old coach.)
Today and tomorrow are good appetizers for a week from today and tomorrow -- can you believe that the First Thursday/First Friday is only a week away? Best two days of the sports year.
More you'll find in today's column:
*NFL's most offseason improved: Ravens?
*Big Ben admits to... what, exactly?
*More bad symbolism for the Celtics.
*Tebow's Wonderlic 22 (see Teblog).
*I love "floating realignment."
Complete column here. More later. Oh, and I taped the KSK podcast last night as a guest. Should be up later today over there. I don't think I said anything too ridiculous, although I made the first public pronouncement that I think Tim Tebow won't be a 1st-round pick. (I know.)
-- D.S.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Quickie: Turner, Big East, Strassy, More
My immersion into March and its obsessive focus on college basketball continues today, pegging today's SN column lead off SN giving its National POY award to Evan Turner.
Now, I had been on the John Wall bandwagon all year -- and he remains the biggest, most exhilarating talent in college basketball and an all-time freshman -- but something clicked for me when I finally recognized that Wall plays with 3 NBA Lottery picks, including another NBA point guard. If Wall didn't go to Kentucky, Eric Bledsoe, Cousins and Patterson would have been more than enough to get Kentucky into the Top 10.
Now, if Turner wasn't available for Ohio State -- as he wasn't for four weeks -- I would be surprised if the Buckeyes could make the Tournament. He lacks Wall's ultimate sizzle, but he is far more well-rounded... and valuable to his team.
All that said: Both Turner and Wall will be judged not on their sublime regular seasons, but on how they do in the NCAA Tournament. Turner needs nothing less than a Wade-like run to the Final Four. For Wall, the Final Four is a minimum; he really needs a championship if he wants to be spoken of in the same context as Carmelo, who I think is, game-for-game, the greatest college basketball player of the modern (post-ESPN, post-64-team-tourney, post-3-point-shot) era.
Anything less, and -- absolutely -- I think less of their college careers. Just look at Kevin Durant, who was amazing in college but couldn't even get out of the first weekend of his one and only NCAA Tournament. For me, that layers in huge disappointment.
There is a reason that college hoops is defined -- quite intensely, thank you -- for March, and not for November through February. Make your mark now, or don't make it at all.
More you'll find in today's SN column:
*UConn really stinks.
*Seton Hall-ND: Should be a NCAA play-in!
*Butler saves a Bubble spot.
*Stephen Strasburg will be just fine.
*Heat < Bobcats?
*Is NASCAR heading for crisis?
See the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Now, I had been on the John Wall bandwagon all year -- and he remains the biggest, most exhilarating talent in college basketball and an all-time freshman -- but something clicked for me when I finally recognized that Wall plays with 3 NBA Lottery picks, including another NBA point guard. If Wall didn't go to Kentucky, Eric Bledsoe, Cousins and Patterson would have been more than enough to get Kentucky into the Top 10.
Now, if Turner wasn't available for Ohio State -- as he wasn't for four weeks -- I would be surprised if the Buckeyes could make the Tournament. He lacks Wall's ultimate sizzle, but he is far more well-rounded... and valuable to his team.
All that said: Both Turner and Wall will be judged not on their sublime regular seasons, but on how they do in the NCAA Tournament. Turner needs nothing less than a Wade-like run to the Final Four. For Wall, the Final Four is a minimum; he really needs a championship if he wants to be spoken of in the same context as Carmelo, who I think is, game-for-game, the greatest college basketball player of the modern (post-ESPN, post-64-team-tourney, post-3-point-shot) era.
Anything less, and -- absolutely -- I think less of their college careers. Just look at Kevin Durant, who was amazing in college but couldn't even get out of the first weekend of his one and only NCAA Tournament. For me, that layers in huge disappointment.
There is a reason that college hoops is defined -- quite intensely, thank you -- for March, and not for November through February. Make your mark now, or don't make it at all.
More you'll find in today's SN column:
*UConn really stinks.
*Seton Hall-ND: Should be a NCAA play-in!
*Butler saves a Bubble spot.
*Stephen Strasburg will be just fine.
*Heat < Bobcats?
*Is NASCAR heading for crisis?
See the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Sloan Sports Analytics Conference Recap
In thinking about how to put the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics conference this past weekend into some kind of perspective, I'm asking myself what were the deepest impressions I was left with. And the one that stuck with me most was the people.
Start with the idea that the group totaled 1,000. That's up from 400 a year ago. In fact, they had 400 people this year on the waiting list alone, who couldn't get in. With that kind of volume, you're bound to be overwhelmed.
When I walked into the main ballroom for the opening remarks -- or the keynote panel at noon, headlined by Michael Lewis, Simmons, Cuban, Polian, Kraft, Morey -- I was blown away by the fact that we filled up the whole massive hall. In the hallways between sessions, packed. The panel for Baseball Analytics wasn't just standing room only; there was a huge line out the door, necks craning to peek in (TVs outside each room helped with overflow -- obviously, that panel needs a bigger room next year).
But it was more than the sheer volume: Everyone was so nice. So friendly. So enthusiastic. It wasn't like a business conference or an affinity conference (like for Trekkies or Star Wars people or Cubs fans), but the best of both worlds. But the main thing is that everyone was really excited to be there and to be around each other.
The huge group was divided into a couple of main segments: There were a ton of students -- college and MBA -- along with a slew of recent grads, which was part of the reason there was so much energy. I don't want to presume, but it felt like most weren't just interested in analytics as fans; they were hustling to try to make connections, to try to get jobs in a field they love.
And that's because of another key group there: Professionals. Team execs, league execs, media execs. If you want to work in a front office, there were a ton of folks to try to track down. If you want to write for a stats-oriented publication that has turned into a de facto development pipeline for front-office jobs, their editors were there.
In an era of the Theo Epstein executive tree (including Josh Byrnes and Jed Hoyer) and Tampa's dynamic duo of Matt Silverman and Andrew Friedman -- when "Prospectus" is an even better pedigree than "JD/MBA" -- the student-attendees and pros alike were a self-selecting group that sees where things are going and want to be part of it.
I had the really unique experience of sitting down for a while with a team executive I admire to an absurd degree (no, not Theo, who wasn't there, and not Morey) for a perfectly chummy chat, and at one point, his panel coordinator approached him and let him know that they had collected 250 resumes for him to take back with him.
I actually think that next year's conference could use a "Career" panel, featuring different pieces of advice. For example, my question is if a would-be future team exec is better off getting in the organization any way they can -- getting coffee, making copies, whatever -- and trying to impress from the inside... or gaining functional skills somewhere other than sports, then trying to move over. The answer is probably both; you ain't gonna learn investment banking analyst program modeling skills necessary to be a front-office contributor if you're working in the team p.r. office and hoping to work your way up.
Here's how I see it: If you really want to be a team front-office executive, you are better off spending your summer internship not fetching coffee for a team or leading stats-oriented Web site. Start your own and own the hell out of some segment of analysis. Post daily, post brilliantly, gently pass your stuff around to folks in media who would appreciate it. If it's good -- and if you're not good, you might as well not even try -- the teams will notice. There is no barrier (at least no publishing barrier) to becoming your own expert and putting your talent on display. THAT is the fast track.
(There is probably an executive education business to be created at MIT or elsewhere that is an intensive one-year program that combines case-study work of sports-industry management with analytical skills learned in an IB analyst program. In fact, that would be a hell of a combo for MIT Sloan and the Prospectus company.)
As always, the success stories of how to make it tend to include a whole lot of relationship management and not a small bit of luck/timing/serendipity. The latter, OK: Hard to control. The former? Well, that's a big reason everyone was there. I really appreciated the folks who I saw introduce themselves directly; panelists were, for the most part, entirely happy to be approached.
To be honest, I wish I had even more of that networking skill. There were a few folks there I really wanted to meet but couldn't figure out the context in which to introduce myself; I am, of course, an idiot and should have directly approached them, stuck out my hand and said hello. Even if everything else out of my mouth was embarrassing and idiotic -- certainly my anxiety, rational or not -- it really doesn't matter. If there was ever an easy space to meet someone, it was this one.
I mean, I wasn't going to stand in line for a half-hour after a panel to try to shake Mark Cuban's hand -- not that there's anything wrong with that if that's something you wanted to do. Then again, I was a complete moron not to say something to him when it was him and me and about two other people in the privacy of the panelists' break room, particularly given that we were both at the Hawks-Mavs game the week before, and if nothing else, I could say, "Hey, how about that crazy play with Jason Kidd and the Hawks coach?" Don't ask me why I didn't say anything. At other moments, I was Julie McCoy, cruise director. Just something to work on.
All I'm saying is: If the context is right, say hi. The worst thing someone can do is impolitely blow you off -- and that says a lot more about them than you. (If you think the worst-case scenario is that you'll sound like a dumbass, you are more likely than not simply letting your nerves get the best of you. Trust me: I'm worried I'll sound like a dumbass -- and often do -- constantly. And, in the end, oh well. At least I will have taken the at-bat.)
I thought the most interesting insight came from Simmons. When asked by Lewis what the analytics industry gets wrong, Bill said they don't make it consumer-friendly enough. Agreed completely. It's not that the stats are bad; it's that the messaging is awkward. Fans want to be able to experience their sports better -- the analytics community has to figure out how to communicate their concepts more clearly, because they DO make the game more fun to understand.
Here's how I'd sum it up: Unlike within the analytics community itself, there's no need to show your work; just offer up some simple sense, and that's good enough. Just make me smarter as a fan and more appreciative of the nuances of the game. I judged a research paper competition run by the conference; my favorite was a paper that compared NBA offensive strategy to driving your car in traffic. I got his point. I think that for next year, they should add a new category of essay: Explaining an advanced, interesting piece of analytics so that the average fan can get it. Frankly, there's an entire book in that for the conference if they can generate enough entries.
Ironically, I didn't spend a ton of time at the panels. In the morning, I sat in the future of sports management. After that, I kind of flitted around. At lunch, I watched the keynote panel, then I was one session away from my own panel, so I just paced around, ducking into a panel on Basketball Analytics to see Cuban, then into a panel on Social Media to see Darren Rovell and Jeff Ma put on a show.
My own panel came in the last slot of the day -- I think a lot of people left after the Lewis/Simmons/Cuban panel... either that, or they just had no interest in The Future of Sports Journalism, featuring me moderating a panel that included Henry Abbott of TrueHoop, Rob King (Editor in Chief of ESPN.com), Howard Beck (NBA reporter for the NY Times) and Jason Fry (news industry genius). But we had a good time, and hopefully the audience enjoyed themselves.
Our panel wasn't quite "analytics"-oriented, but I think the conference is better shifting to "Future of..." rather than limiting itself to "Analytics" exclusively (although that should always be the heart of the thing). But leading edge thought is what analytics is all about, and it was fun to apply that to something I care so much about. The panel was terrific -- we all got along and brought very different perspectives. The most interesting part, to me, was a brief digression we went into about something I've been arguing for years: The scoop is dead. Or, more mildly, what's the value of the scoop anymore? I feel like we could have done an hour on that alone.
After the panel, there was a brief cocktail party in the convention center that everyone enjoyed. I was able to congratulate and compliment the extraordinary team of MIT MBA students who ran the event (under the guidance of Daryl Morey and Jessica Gelman, the conference co-founders). In particular, I want to give a shout-out to Gerry Hough, who expertly and enthusiastically organized my panel. Any readers from the sports brand-management side and have any need for a smart, personable, action-oriented, talented MBA summer intern, Gerry is your woman. Email me if I can make an introduction. But all of the student organizers were terrific, and this was as well-organized of a conference as I have ever experienced.
After the drinks, I hooked up with a slew of NBA-related folks for a dinner for around 30. I can't even list everyone who was there, although in my general vicinity were Henry Abbott and Kevin Arnovitz of TrueHoop, ESPN.com NBA editor Royce Webb, the NYT's Howard Beck, ESPN PER guru John Hollinger, super-trainer and ESPN.com columnist David Thorpe, Kings assistant GM Jason Levien, Draft Express founder Jonathan Givony and ESPN's Marc Stein -- who was a good sport during our panel when Rob King and I picked him out of the crowd as an example of whether scoops matter. I knew some and had never met others. I had the chance to chat with all of them, and -- again with the theme of the weekend -- all couldn't have been more friendly to talk with. (That wasn't meant to be name-droppish -- just trying to give you some color to the non-panel part of the weekend.)
In the end, like everyone at the conference, I believe in analytics. But there is a misconception that analytics is about numbers, rather than about the intersection of numbers and people.
Analytics need people both to create them and interpret them. They need passionate folks crunching them and proselytizing them. They need people advancing the cause -- and enthusiastically lining up to be and to create the future of the cause.
This was a conference about people, and sports is a much much healthier place for having the folks I saw up in Boston coming together to talk, listen, argue, mingle, solicit and connect.
-- D.S.
Start with the idea that the group totaled 1,000. That's up from 400 a year ago. In fact, they had 400 people this year on the waiting list alone, who couldn't get in. With that kind of volume, you're bound to be overwhelmed.
When I walked into the main ballroom for the opening remarks -- or the keynote panel at noon, headlined by Michael Lewis, Simmons, Cuban, Polian, Kraft, Morey -- I was blown away by the fact that we filled up the whole massive hall. In the hallways between sessions, packed. The panel for Baseball Analytics wasn't just standing room only; there was a huge line out the door, necks craning to peek in (TVs outside each room helped with overflow -- obviously, that panel needs a bigger room next year).
But it was more than the sheer volume: Everyone was so nice. So friendly. So enthusiastic. It wasn't like a business conference or an affinity conference (like for Trekkies or Star Wars people or Cubs fans), but the best of both worlds. But the main thing is that everyone was really excited to be there and to be around each other.
The huge group was divided into a couple of main segments: There were a ton of students -- college and MBA -- along with a slew of recent grads, which was part of the reason there was so much energy. I don't want to presume, but it felt like most weren't just interested in analytics as fans; they were hustling to try to make connections, to try to get jobs in a field they love.
And that's because of another key group there: Professionals. Team execs, league execs, media execs. If you want to work in a front office, there were a ton of folks to try to track down. If you want to write for a stats-oriented publication that has turned into a de facto development pipeline for front-office jobs, their editors were there.
In an era of the Theo Epstein executive tree (including Josh Byrnes and Jed Hoyer) and Tampa's dynamic duo of Matt Silverman and Andrew Friedman -- when "Prospectus" is an even better pedigree than "JD/MBA" -- the student-attendees and pros alike were a self-selecting group that sees where things are going and want to be part of it.
I had the really unique experience of sitting down for a while with a team executive I admire to an absurd degree (no, not Theo, who wasn't there, and not Morey) for a perfectly chummy chat, and at one point, his panel coordinator approached him and let him know that they had collected 250 resumes for him to take back with him.
I actually think that next year's conference could use a "Career" panel, featuring different pieces of advice. For example, my question is if a would-be future team exec is better off getting in the organization any way they can -- getting coffee, making copies, whatever -- and trying to impress from the inside... or gaining functional skills somewhere other than sports, then trying to move over. The answer is probably both; you ain't gonna learn investment banking analyst program modeling skills necessary to be a front-office contributor if you're working in the team p.r. office and hoping to work your way up.
Here's how I see it: If you really want to be a team front-office executive, you are better off spending your summer internship not fetching coffee for a team or leading stats-oriented Web site. Start your own and own the hell out of some segment of analysis. Post daily, post brilliantly, gently pass your stuff around to folks in media who would appreciate it. If it's good -- and if you're not good, you might as well not even try -- the teams will notice. There is no barrier (at least no publishing barrier) to becoming your own expert and putting your talent on display. THAT is the fast track.
(There is probably an executive education business to be created at MIT or elsewhere that is an intensive one-year program that combines case-study work of sports-industry management with analytical skills learned in an IB analyst program. In fact, that would be a hell of a combo for MIT Sloan and the Prospectus company.)
As always, the success stories of how to make it tend to include a whole lot of relationship management and not a small bit of luck/timing/serendipity. The latter, OK: Hard to control. The former? Well, that's a big reason everyone was there. I really appreciated the folks who I saw introduce themselves directly; panelists were, for the most part, entirely happy to be approached.
To be honest, I wish I had even more of that networking skill. There were a few folks there I really wanted to meet but couldn't figure out the context in which to introduce myself; I am, of course, an idiot and should have directly approached them, stuck out my hand and said hello. Even if everything else out of my mouth was embarrassing and idiotic -- certainly my anxiety, rational or not -- it really doesn't matter. If there was ever an easy space to meet someone, it was this one.
I mean, I wasn't going to stand in line for a half-hour after a panel to try to shake Mark Cuban's hand -- not that there's anything wrong with that if that's something you wanted to do. Then again, I was a complete moron not to say something to him when it was him and me and about two other people in the privacy of the panelists' break room, particularly given that we were both at the Hawks-Mavs game the week before, and if nothing else, I could say, "Hey, how about that crazy play with Jason Kidd and the Hawks coach?" Don't ask me why I didn't say anything. At other moments, I was Julie McCoy, cruise director. Just something to work on.
All I'm saying is: If the context is right, say hi. The worst thing someone can do is impolitely blow you off -- and that says a lot more about them than you. (If you think the worst-case scenario is that you'll sound like a dumbass, you are more likely than not simply letting your nerves get the best of you. Trust me: I'm worried I'll sound like a dumbass -- and often do -- constantly. And, in the end, oh well. At least I will have taken the at-bat.)
I thought the most interesting insight came from Simmons. When asked by Lewis what the analytics industry gets wrong, Bill said they don't make it consumer-friendly enough. Agreed completely. It's not that the stats are bad; it's that the messaging is awkward. Fans want to be able to experience their sports better -- the analytics community has to figure out how to communicate their concepts more clearly, because they DO make the game more fun to understand.
Here's how I'd sum it up: Unlike within the analytics community itself, there's no need to show your work; just offer up some simple sense, and that's good enough. Just make me smarter as a fan and more appreciative of the nuances of the game. I judged a research paper competition run by the conference; my favorite was a paper that compared NBA offensive strategy to driving your car in traffic. I got his point. I think that for next year, they should add a new category of essay: Explaining an advanced, interesting piece of analytics so that the average fan can get it. Frankly, there's an entire book in that for the conference if they can generate enough entries.
Ironically, I didn't spend a ton of time at the panels. In the morning, I sat in the future of sports management. After that, I kind of flitted around. At lunch, I watched the keynote panel, then I was one session away from my own panel, so I just paced around, ducking into a panel on Basketball Analytics to see Cuban, then into a panel on Social Media to see Darren Rovell and Jeff Ma put on a show.
My own panel came in the last slot of the day -- I think a lot of people left after the Lewis/Simmons/Cuban panel... either that, or they just had no interest in The Future of Sports Journalism, featuring me moderating a panel that included Henry Abbott of TrueHoop, Rob King (Editor in Chief of ESPN.com), Howard Beck (NBA reporter for the NY Times) and Jason Fry (news industry genius). But we had a good time, and hopefully the audience enjoyed themselves.
Our panel wasn't quite "analytics"-oriented, but I think the conference is better shifting to "Future of..." rather than limiting itself to "Analytics" exclusively (although that should always be the heart of the thing). But leading edge thought is what analytics is all about, and it was fun to apply that to something I care so much about. The panel was terrific -- we all got along and brought very different perspectives. The most interesting part, to me, was a brief digression we went into about something I've been arguing for years: The scoop is dead. Or, more mildly, what's the value of the scoop anymore? I feel like we could have done an hour on that alone.
After the panel, there was a brief cocktail party in the convention center that everyone enjoyed. I was able to congratulate and compliment the extraordinary team of MIT MBA students who ran the event (under the guidance of Daryl Morey and Jessica Gelman, the conference co-founders). In particular, I want to give a shout-out to Gerry Hough, who expertly and enthusiastically organized my panel. Any readers from the sports brand-management side and have any need for a smart, personable, action-oriented, talented MBA summer intern, Gerry is your woman. Email me if I can make an introduction. But all of the student organizers were terrific, and this was as well-organized of a conference as I have ever experienced.
After the drinks, I hooked up with a slew of NBA-related folks for a dinner for around 30. I can't even list everyone who was there, although in my general vicinity were Henry Abbott and Kevin Arnovitz of TrueHoop, ESPN.com NBA editor Royce Webb, the NYT's Howard Beck, ESPN PER guru John Hollinger, super-trainer and ESPN.com columnist David Thorpe, Kings assistant GM Jason Levien, Draft Express founder Jonathan Givony and ESPN's Marc Stein -- who was a good sport during our panel when Rob King and I picked him out of the crowd as an example of whether scoops matter. I knew some and had never met others. I had the chance to chat with all of them, and -- again with the theme of the weekend -- all couldn't have been more friendly to talk with. (That wasn't meant to be name-droppish -- just trying to give you some color to the non-panel part of the weekend.)
In the end, like everyone at the conference, I believe in analytics. But there is a misconception that analytics is about numbers, rather than about the intersection of numbers and people.
Analytics need people both to create them and interpret them. They need passionate folks crunching them and proselytizing them. They need people advancing the cause -- and enthusiastically lining up to be and to create the future of the cause.
This was a conference about people, and sports is a much much healthier place for having the folks I saw up in Boston coming together to talk, listen, argue, mingle, solicit and connect.
-- D.S.
3/09 Quickie: UConn, Bubble, Bradford
Start with this: Sign up NOW for the original and the best -- the Daily Quickie Readers group of the Tournament Challenge. (Just search "Daily Quickie Readers.") Now in its 8th year!
Now, to today's SN column:
*In praise of UConn 71!
*Boeheim: Appreciated!
*All-Americans: Guarded!
*Gonzaga: At-large!
*Big East: Insanely deep!
*Bradford: Doubted!
*Tebow: Loyal!
*McCoy: Mocks Suh!
*Mavs: Not the Lakers!
*Hawks: Not ready for the big time!
*Cardinals: NL Pennant or Bust!
*RichRod: 1 More Year!
*NASCAR: Conflicted!
It's a loaded column. Check it all out here. My MIT Sports Analytics Conference recap is coming a little later this morning. (Preview: I duck the numbers!)
-- D.S.
Now, to today's SN column:
*In praise of UConn 71!
*Boeheim: Appreciated!
*All-Americans: Guarded!
*Gonzaga: At-large!
*Big East: Insanely deep!
*Bradford: Doubted!
*Tebow: Loyal!
*McCoy: Mocks Suh!
*Mavs: Not the Lakers!
*Hawks: Not ready for the big time!
*Cardinals: NL Pennant or Bust!
*RichRod: 1 More Year!
*NASCAR: Conflicted!
It's a loaded column. Check it all out here. My MIT Sports Analytics Conference recap is coming a little later this morning. (Preview: I duck the numbers!)
-- D.S.
Monday, March 08, 2010
CBS Sports' Killer App: Madness Anywhere
I just tweeted this: "CBS Sports putting its March Madness live-video iPhone app on 3G rather than just WiFi is another huge milestone in the fan experience."
Let's review:
First, CBS streamed NCAA Tournament games online so you could watch them on your laptop -- meaning: at work. It was a breakthrough. No longer did you have to sneak out of work (or use vacation days) to get to the sports bar to watch games.
Next, they put it on the iPhone: This made the streaming experience portable, which was welcome -- but with a catch: You could only view it through wifi networks. Now, that's great at work or at home, but it was severely limiting if you were anywhere but those two places.
But expanding the iPhone app to any 3G connection means that I could be walking down the street, watching games. Or on a bus. Or sitting in Central Park. Or hanging out at a bar that is only showing one game. The point is that I can be anywhere.
Unfortunately, the iPad will be coming out too late to experience it as an NCAA Tournament showstopper, but I think that the bigger iteration is this 3G -- "Madness Anywhere" (that's my phrase, not CBS's).
The only caveat: It better work! Millions of other fans will join me in shelling out $9.99 for the app -- and we're counting on it working without problems.
I like that CBS Sports knows that March Madness is their killer app -- and continually expanding their platforms to take advantage of that.
-- D.S.
Let's review:
First, CBS streamed NCAA Tournament games online so you could watch them on your laptop -- meaning: at work. It was a breakthrough. No longer did you have to sneak out of work (or use vacation days) to get to the sports bar to watch games.
Next, they put it on the iPhone: This made the streaming experience portable, which was welcome -- but with a catch: You could only view it through wifi networks. Now, that's great at work or at home, but it was severely limiting if you were anywhere but those two places.
But expanding the iPhone app to any 3G connection means that I could be walking down the street, watching games. Or on a bus. Or sitting in Central Park. Or hanging out at a bar that is only showing one game. The point is that I can be anywhere.
Unfortunately, the iPad will be coming out too late to experience it as an NCAA Tournament showstopper, but I think that the bigger iteration is this 3G -- "Madness Anywhere" (that's my phrase, not CBS's).
The only caveat: It better work! Millions of other fans will join me in shelling out $9.99 for the app -- and we're counting on it working without problems.
I like that CBS Sports knows that March Madness is their killer app -- and continually expanding their platforms to take advantage of that.
-- D.S.
Quickie: March Really Starts Right Now
It's a gorgeous day in NYC today -- it feels like the perfect moment to coincide with a 4-week stretch of college basketball that starts with Championship Week (among bigger leagues), continues through Selection Sunday and the Tournament itself and finishes four weeks from today with the national title game, which -- without seeing the brackets or second-guessing myself into oblivion next Sunday night -- I'll say will be Syracuse over Kansas, in a repeat of the 2003 title-game result. But today's SN column is precisely about what a great month we're kicking off.
There's a lot more:
*John Wall: Freshman of the Year, obviously. And, I would argue, First-Team All-Time All-Freshmen. Not quite Carmelo, but more than Durant/Beasley. Yeah, I said it. (Hell, I bet there's an argument to be made that Cousins is as impactful of a freshman as Durant was.)
*Big winners in NFL Free Agency? Bears (Peppers), Giants (Rolle) and Dolphins (Dansby), obviously, but I really like the Kampmann deal for the Jags, who desperately need help with pass rush (which is ridiculous, given the high draft picks they spent on pass rushers recently).
*If you're firing umps, maybe you should consider a more robust replay system.
*Bullock/Blind Side: I think you can make the strong case that with her Oscar win (over Meryl Streep!), Sandra Bullock's character is the greatest female character in a sports movie of all time. Certainly the most-decorated, which puts her right up there with Stallone's Rocky and DeNiro's LaMotta -- both of whom earned their actors an Oscar.
Complete SN column here. More later -- still thinking about my MIT post, but there's tons out there, including a lot on TrueHoop and elsewhere.
-- D.S.
There's a lot more:
*John Wall: Freshman of the Year, obviously. And, I would argue, First-Team All-Time All-Freshmen. Not quite Carmelo, but more than Durant/Beasley. Yeah, I said it. (Hell, I bet there's an argument to be made that Cousins is as impactful of a freshman as Durant was.)
*Big winners in NFL Free Agency? Bears (Peppers), Giants (Rolle) and Dolphins (Dansby), obviously, but I really like the Kampmann deal for the Jags, who desperately need help with pass rush (which is ridiculous, given the high draft picks they spent on pass rushers recently).
*If you're firing umps, maybe you should consider a more robust replay system.
*Bullock/Blind Side: I think you can make the strong case that with her Oscar win (over Meryl Streep!), Sandra Bullock's character is the greatest female character in a sports movie of all time. Certainly the most-decorated, which puts her right up there with Stallone's Rocky and DeNiro's LaMotta -- both of whom earned their actors an Oscar.
Complete SN column here. More later -- still thinking about my MIT post, but there's tons out there, including a lot on TrueHoop and elsewhere.
-- D.S.
Jonah Hill Is Paul DePodesta
A little Hollywood news out of the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference: As Rob Neyer breaks in his Monday link round-up, Michael Lewis told him that the "Moneyball" movie is full-speed ahead, with one major casting change: The role of Billy Beane sidekick Paul DePodesta will now be played by Jonah Hill. (Look: If Sandra Bullock can win an Emmy for Best Actress, over Meryl Streep, in a sports movie made for non-sports fans that became the highest-grossing sports movie ever, Hill can totally work as DePo.)
Sunday, March 07, 2010
Weekend Quickie: Analytics!
Just got back from the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. I'm going to try to write up my thoughts tomorrow, but it was a terrific event -- as well-organized as any conference I've ever been to, with attendees (panelists and conference-goers alike) as sincere and friendly as any you'll meet. Everyone had a great time.
In the meantime, what'd I miss?
*Congrats to Winthrop and East Tennessee State, who both won auto-bids on the road.
*Syracuse won't be No. 1; Louisville may have won its way into the Tournament. Kansas confirmed it will be the No. 1 team (and probably the No. 1 overall team of the NCAA Tournament).
*Kansas State: Ouch. That's a big "buyer beware" when you're filling out your bracket.
*Anyone buying Purdue? Anyone? 4-seed. (Speaking of which: Texas... yikes. Criminy, they are terrible.)
*Good for Duke: They needed that one, not just to put themselves in position to be a 1-seed, but absolutely humiliating UNC, capping a truly terrible season for the Heels.
*Break up the Mavs!
*Any ideas how I should handle the latest Big Ben thing?
ACK! Forgot to hit "Publish" on this yesterday!
-- D.S.
In the meantime, what'd I miss?
*Congrats to Winthrop and East Tennessee State, who both won auto-bids on the road.
*Syracuse won't be No. 1; Louisville may have won its way into the Tournament. Kansas confirmed it will be the No. 1 team (and probably the No. 1 overall team of the NCAA Tournament).
*Kansas State: Ouch. That's a big "buyer beware" when you're filling out your bracket.
*Anyone buying Purdue? Anyone? 4-seed. (Speaking of which: Texas... yikes. Criminy, they are terrible.)
*Good for Duke: They needed that one, not just to put themselves in position to be a 1-seed, but absolutely humiliating UNC, capping a truly terrible season for the Heels.
*Break up the Mavs!
*Any ideas how I should handle the latest Big Ben thing?
ACK! Forgot to hit "Publish" on this yesterday!
-- D.S.
Friday, March 05, 2010
Quickie: Things Just Got Interesting
First of all, let me say this: I find it hard to believe we live in a world where Sandra Bullock could beat out Meryl Streep for a "Best Actress" Emmy. For a sports movie, no less! The annual Quickie Oscar picks are in today's SN column.
Meanwhile, this weekend tips off the official start of "March Madness" -- Championship Week. I love these first few conference tournament title games, because they are one-bid leagues and this it. Nevermind that their NCAA Tournament ends on Day 1 -- this is a career-maker.
I'm less mesmerized by the major-conference season finales, if only because all Bubble teams inevitably save/crush their seasons in their conference tournaments later next week.
NFL Free Agency is here, and in today's SN column, I go back to my childhood roots as a comic-book nerd to compare the state of the NFL to the state of a planet when Galactus is on his way.
There's a ton of other stuff in the column today -- please check it out here. I'm hustling up to Boston for the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. If that kind of stuff interests you, I'll be updating mostly via Twitter.
-- D.S.
Meanwhile, this weekend tips off the official start of "March Madness" -- Championship Week. I love these first few conference tournament title games, because they are one-bid leagues and this it. Nevermind that their NCAA Tournament ends on Day 1 -- this is a career-maker.
I'm less mesmerized by the major-conference season finales, if only because all Bubble teams inevitably save/crush their seasons in their conference tournaments later next week.
NFL Free Agency is here, and in today's SN column, I go back to my childhood roots as a comic-book nerd to compare the state of the NFL to the state of a planet when Galactus is on his way.
There's a ton of other stuff in the column today -- please check it out here. I'm hustling up to Boston for the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference. If that kind of stuff interests you, I'll be updating mostly via Twitter.
-- D.S.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Quickie: Griner, Greivis, ND, Melo-KD
I feel bad for Brittney Griner, if only for the fact that she is a 6-foot-8 super-talented, YouTube-sensation freshman for a Baylor team that should be poised for a run into the Elite Eight of the women's NCAA Tournament, and she will now be known almost entirely for clocking that Texas Tech player last night.
However, it did inspire a bit of Quickie-esque shorthand for today's SN column lead: It was her "One Shiner Moment."
I don't think that if this happened in December or January that Griner would be suspended through the end of the season, including the NCAA Tournament. (Who knows: Maybe.) But the fact that this happened in March means that Baylor and the Big 12 can't possibly NOT suspend her through the Big 12 and NCAA Tournaments. That's, like, all of 8-10 games, which is probably not enough for throwing a full-blown punch on the court.
But the reality is that like LeGarrette Blount, this will migrate from niche sports news to mainstream cable news, and Baylor and the Big 12 won't be able to avoid a month-long suspension, because of the extra scrutiny from the national glare.
Anyway, if it was DeMarcus Cousins, I wonder what would happen. You know that Calipari would want to suspend him for the SEC but not NCAA Tournament (Calipari doesn't care at all about winning the SEC; he only cares about NCAA seeding). I would be curious what the SEC would do, given that Kentucky represents the league's best hope for an NCAA hoops title this season and Cousins is an integral part of that run.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Good for Notre Dame! (See: I don't hate everything about ND. Just Charlie Weis and the football team. As far as hoops is concerned, I totally respect their season-ending run.)
*You all know that even though I dislike Duke, how much I like Jon Scheyer -- arguably the greatest Jewish college basketball player of the past 50 years. But watching Maryland beat Duke last night -- what an atmosphere -- I have to give Greivis Vasquez the nod for ACC Player of the Year ahead of Scheyer. No one saw a Maryland regular-season ACC title coming, and that's in large part due to Vasquez's skill -- and demonstrative sensibility, which I love.
*Kansas beats down K-State: I will be curious to see how universal the attitude is to take Kansas to the Final Four on everyone's bracket. I cannot imagine not giving them 4 wins to start the Tournament. (I learned a painful lesson last year not to overthink myself -- that, and the field looks so top-heavy this year... at least among the Top 3.)
*Kennesaw. This is why conference tournaments are fun -- but truly make a mockery of the regular season. As long as a team does the minimum to qualify for their conference tournament, they can offset an entire season's subpar body of work by simply winning 4 straight games in March. There isn't a major-conference Bubble team that has the same level of pressure as the minor-conference regular-season champ that won't go to the Tournament unless they win their league tournament.
*If you were starting an NBA franchise today, trying to win over the long-term, LeBron would be the obvious No. 1 pick, with Kevin Durant likely being No. 2. But today, I think you can make a strong case that Carmelo Anthony is superior to Durant, and I'm not just saying that because Melo put up 30 to Durant's 19 last night in Denver's rout of OKC. Melo has the better team around him -- for now. But in all the hoopla to celebrate Durant's breakthrough this season (and he deserves it), Anthony is more quietly having his best season ever and affirming himself as a top-tier player at the same level as LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Howard and, yes, KD.
*Anyone want to put Jake Peavy in the Top 5 for 2010 AL Cy Young predictions? I'll do it, lumping him in with Greinke, Sabathia, Lackey and... well, I know I'm forgetting someone. (UPDATE: Cripes, how could I forget King Felix and Cliff Lee?)
Tons more in today's column. Check it out here. And check back for more later.
-- D.S.
However, it did inspire a bit of Quickie-esque shorthand for today's SN column lead: It was her "One Shiner Moment."
I don't think that if this happened in December or January that Griner would be suspended through the end of the season, including the NCAA Tournament. (Who knows: Maybe.) But the fact that this happened in March means that Baylor and the Big 12 can't possibly NOT suspend her through the Big 12 and NCAA Tournaments. That's, like, all of 8-10 games, which is probably not enough for throwing a full-blown punch on the court.
But the reality is that like LeGarrette Blount, this will migrate from niche sports news to mainstream cable news, and Baylor and the Big 12 won't be able to avoid a month-long suspension, because of the extra scrutiny from the national glare.
Anyway, if it was DeMarcus Cousins, I wonder what would happen. You know that Calipari would want to suspend him for the SEC but not NCAA Tournament (Calipari doesn't care at all about winning the SEC; he only cares about NCAA seeding). I would be curious what the SEC would do, given that Kentucky represents the league's best hope for an NCAA hoops title this season and Cousins is an integral part of that run.
More you'll find in today's column:
*Good for Notre Dame! (See: I don't hate everything about ND. Just Charlie Weis and the football team. As far as hoops is concerned, I totally respect their season-ending run.)
*You all know that even though I dislike Duke, how much I like Jon Scheyer -- arguably the greatest Jewish college basketball player of the past 50 years. But watching Maryland beat Duke last night -- what an atmosphere -- I have to give Greivis Vasquez the nod for ACC Player of the Year ahead of Scheyer. No one saw a Maryland regular-season ACC title coming, and that's in large part due to Vasquez's skill -- and demonstrative sensibility, which I love.
*Kansas beats down K-State: I will be curious to see how universal the attitude is to take Kansas to the Final Four on everyone's bracket. I cannot imagine not giving them 4 wins to start the Tournament. (I learned a painful lesson last year not to overthink myself -- that, and the field looks so top-heavy this year... at least among the Top 3.)
*Kennesaw. This is why conference tournaments are fun -- but truly make a mockery of the regular season. As long as a team does the minimum to qualify for their conference tournament, they can offset an entire season's subpar body of work by simply winning 4 straight games in March. There isn't a major-conference Bubble team that has the same level of pressure as the minor-conference regular-season champ that won't go to the Tournament unless they win their league tournament.
*If you were starting an NBA franchise today, trying to win over the long-term, LeBron would be the obvious No. 1 pick, with Kevin Durant likely being No. 2. But today, I think you can make a strong case that Carmelo Anthony is superior to Durant, and I'm not just saying that because Melo put up 30 to Durant's 19 last night in Denver's rout of OKC. Melo has the better team around him -- for now. But in all the hoopla to celebrate Durant's breakthrough this season (and he deserves it), Anthony is more quietly having his best season ever and affirming himself as a top-tier player at the same level as LeBron, Kobe, Wade, Howard and, yes, KD.
*Anyone want to put Jake Peavy in the Top 5 for 2010 AL Cy Young predictions? I'll do it, lumping him in with Greinke, Sabathia, Lackey and... well, I know I'm forgetting someone. (UPDATE: Cripes, how could I forget King Felix and Cliff Lee?)
Tons more in today's column. Check it out here. And check back for more later.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Quickie: Bubble, Tiger, Combine, MLB
I don't think it makes me a bad fan that I think -- as of last night -- that Florida doesn't deserve an at-large bid into the NCAA Tournament.
As I mentioned in today's SN column lead, I recognize that a team's fans are mostly bound to make the affirmative case for their team's NCAA Bubble status -- no matter how tenuous.
I think that's misguided, and ultimately, you're only deluding yourself -- not to mention eroding the Tournament.
From a micro perspective, the question is whether Florida has done enough to get in. Yes, they beat Tennessee a week ago, but they lost at Georgia on Saturday, then at home in a "must-win" to Vandy. They play at Kentucky on Sunday, which I'll consider a moral victory if they don't lose by more than 20. But I have watched this team a lot, and they don't play like a Tournament team. In fact, they play like a team that if they DID get in would lose in Round 1.
At the macro level: Does a Bubble team that loses in the Tournament's 1st round mean the spot was wasted on them? Not quite: Half the teams have to lose in the 1st round... and, in fact, those at-large teams seeded 9-13 are, technically, expected to lose in the 1st round. Still: The question is whether the Tournament is better off having the Nth unsatisfying major-conference team that's going to get bounced before the 1st weekend is over... or the plucky mid-major with more upset/upside potential. If they lose, no harm done; if they win, it's a great story.
It's not about Florida. It's about all those Bubble teams that are limping to the finish or with resumes that are hardly compelling.
In fact, the more provocative point from today's lead is not that I'm down on Florida's NCAA chances -- but that I appear to contradict my long-held idea that the 96-team tournament is superior to the 64-team tournament. If I'm deflated by the weak Bubble teams that get in, how will I feel about adding another 32 teams to that mix?
But the fact is that it's just as much of an indictment against a 64-team field. Forget "Last 4 In" -- the last 12 major-conference at-large teams that will get in are all mediocrities who would surprise me to survive the first weekend. (I'm sure that at least 1 or 2 will get to the Sweet 16; that's just numbers. But let's hope of the 9-14 seeds that get to the Sweet 16, they are from mid-major or minor conferences.)
Then again, the reason the 96-team field works is the same reason, in the end, the 64-team field works -- and it has nothing to do with the teams that make it (or don't). The NCAA Tournament has always been about the format. Whether the Last 4 In include Florida or not, fans will still rush to the bracket in two weeks to pore over it and make picks, then stay glued to the TV two weeks from tomorrow to watch the games -- no matter who is playing.
Is it more fun when YOUR team is in it? Most of the time. But it's really worth asking yourself: Do they honestly deserve it? I'm not saying Florida can't play their way back into me thinking they deserve it -- a win at Kentucky would suffice, thanks, but I'll settle for 2 wins in the SEC Tournament. And, frankly, even if they lose to Kentucky then in the 1st round of the SECs, they may still make it in as an at-large. But we're a long way from back-to-back title squads.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
As I mentioned in today's SN column lead, I recognize that a team's fans are mostly bound to make the affirmative case for their team's NCAA Bubble status -- no matter how tenuous.
I think that's misguided, and ultimately, you're only deluding yourself -- not to mention eroding the Tournament.
From a micro perspective, the question is whether Florida has done enough to get in. Yes, they beat Tennessee a week ago, but they lost at Georgia on Saturday, then at home in a "must-win" to Vandy. They play at Kentucky on Sunday, which I'll consider a moral victory if they don't lose by more than 20. But I have watched this team a lot, and they don't play like a Tournament team. In fact, they play like a team that if they DID get in would lose in Round 1.
At the macro level: Does a Bubble team that loses in the Tournament's 1st round mean the spot was wasted on them? Not quite: Half the teams have to lose in the 1st round... and, in fact, those at-large teams seeded 9-13 are, technically, expected to lose in the 1st round. Still: The question is whether the Tournament is better off having the Nth unsatisfying major-conference team that's going to get bounced before the 1st weekend is over... or the plucky mid-major with more upset/upside potential. If they lose, no harm done; if they win, it's a great story.
It's not about Florida. It's about all those Bubble teams that are limping to the finish or with resumes that are hardly compelling.
In fact, the more provocative point from today's lead is not that I'm down on Florida's NCAA chances -- but that I appear to contradict my long-held idea that the 96-team tournament is superior to the 64-team tournament. If I'm deflated by the weak Bubble teams that get in, how will I feel about adding another 32 teams to that mix?
But the fact is that it's just as much of an indictment against a 64-team field. Forget "Last 4 In" -- the last 12 major-conference at-large teams that will get in are all mediocrities who would surprise me to survive the first weekend. (I'm sure that at least 1 or 2 will get to the Sweet 16; that's just numbers. But let's hope of the 9-14 seeds that get to the Sweet 16, they are from mid-major or minor conferences.)
Then again, the reason the 96-team field works is the same reason, in the end, the 64-team field works -- and it has nothing to do with the teams that make it (or don't). The NCAA Tournament has always been about the format. Whether the Last 4 In include Florida or not, fans will still rush to the bracket in two weeks to pore over it and make picks, then stay glued to the TV two weeks from tomorrow to watch the games -- no matter who is playing.
Is it more fun when YOUR team is in it? Most of the time. But it's really worth asking yourself: Do they honestly deserve it? I'm not saying Florida can't play their way back into me thinking they deserve it -- a win at Kentucky would suffice, thanks, but I'll settle for 2 wins in the SEC Tournament. And, frankly, even if they lose to Kentucky then in the 1st round of the SECs, they may still make it in as an at-large. But we're a long way from back-to-back title squads.
Complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Championship Week Pick 'Em
Let's get warmed up for the annual Daily Quickie Readers NCAA Tournament pick 'em contest with a Championship Week pick 'em contest. Sign up here. Group name: Daily Quickie Readers.
Advice for SI.com About Video
As we are on the subject of the future of sports journalism, PaidContent had an update on SI.com's new foray into videos -- besides the cheesecake related to the Swimsuit issue -- and it is an interesting (some might say "must-try" experiment) for them. I would urge them to read this post from Jeff Jarvis about an online-news video success story in SI's backyard.
(SI.com's new video unit includes one of the star students in the Entrepreneurial Journalism course that I co-taught with Jarvis at CUNY this past fall: Collin Orcutt. SI.com ME Paul Fichtenbaum and new video honcho Ian Orefice would be smart to give Orcutt plenty of room to innovate; he intuitively gets this stuff Jarvis talks about.)
(SI.com's new video unit includes one of the star students in the Entrepreneurial Journalism course that I co-taught with Jarvis at CUNY this past fall: Collin Orcutt. SI.com ME Paul Fichtenbaum and new video honcho Ian Orefice would be smart to give Orcutt plenty of room to innovate; he intuitively gets this stuff Jarvis talks about.)
The Future of Sports Journalism?
On Saturday, I will be moderating a panel at this year's MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, founded by Rockets GM Daryl Morey and my HBS classmate (and Patriots executive) Jessica Gelman. I think it has become one of the best sports conferences of the year, and since it was started a couple of years ago, I have wanted to participate in some way.
After bugging both Jess and Daryl, they graciously have allowed me to participate in this year's conference, including a headliner panel ("The Limits of Moneyball: What the Geeks Don't Get") that includes Mark Cuban, Bill Simmons and Bill Polian, moderated by Michael Lewis.
Although I have a massive appreciation and enthusiasm for analytics in sports, I am by no means an expert; however, I was thrilled that they wanted to expand the agenda to include a panel about sports media, a topic that I care about -- although it is questionable whether I am expert anywhere but my own mind.
Still: There we are -- "Future of Sports Journalism" -- capping (rather than, say, "ending") the day's program. It is going head-to-head with "Coaching Analytics" (featuring Nate Silver!) and "Buzzworthy Events." I hope that we can draw a crowd and that the panel holds up to its potential.
It is a great group: Rob King, Editor-in-Chief of ESPN.com; Henry Abbott, founder of TrueHoop on ESPN.com; Howard Beck, national NBA reporter for the New York Times; and Jason Fry, formerly of the Wall Street Journal and now one of the most influential thinkers on the state and fate of news media, sports and otherwise. I get to lead them in the discussion.
I have a couple of ideas about things I want to talk about, but I would really love to get your input on big issues -- particularly related to the perspective of how consumers are... well, consuming. It's my thesis -- and others' too -- that in all the navel-gazing about the news industry, there hasn't been nearly enough focus on the customer. I hope to dig into that.
But I would love to hear the issues related to sports journalism -- the "future" of sports journalism -- that you think are particularly relevant or interesting, particularly as they can be informed by the group that will be talking on the panel.
Sincere thanks for your input.
-- D.S.
(Don't think there's a Webcam on the event, but I presume there will be a Twitter hashtag you can follow. I'll pass that along as soon as I find out. UPDATE: #sloansportsconf)
After bugging both Jess and Daryl, they graciously have allowed me to participate in this year's conference, including a headliner panel ("The Limits of Moneyball: What the Geeks Don't Get") that includes Mark Cuban, Bill Simmons and Bill Polian, moderated by Michael Lewis.
Although I have a massive appreciation and enthusiasm for analytics in sports, I am by no means an expert; however, I was thrilled that they wanted to expand the agenda to include a panel about sports media, a topic that I care about -- although it is questionable whether I am expert anywhere but my own mind.
Still: There we are -- "Future of Sports Journalism" -- capping (rather than, say, "ending") the day's program. It is going head-to-head with "Coaching Analytics" (featuring Nate Silver!) and "Buzzworthy Events." I hope that we can draw a crowd and that the panel holds up to its potential.
It is a great group: Rob King, Editor-in-Chief of ESPN.com; Henry Abbott, founder of TrueHoop on ESPN.com; Howard Beck, national NBA reporter for the New York Times; and Jason Fry, formerly of the Wall Street Journal and now one of the most influential thinkers on the state and fate of news media, sports and otherwise. I get to lead them in the discussion.
I have a couple of ideas about things I want to talk about, but I would really love to get your input on big issues -- particularly related to the perspective of how consumers are... well, consuming. It's my thesis -- and others' too -- that in all the navel-gazing about the news industry, there hasn't been nearly enough focus on the customer. I hope to dig into that.
But I would love to hear the issues related to sports journalism -- the "future" of sports journalism -- that you think are particularly relevant or interesting, particularly as they can be informed by the group that will be talking on the panel.
Sincere thanks for your input.
-- D.S.
(Don't think there's a Webcam on the event, but I presume there will be a Twitter hashtag you can follow. I'll pass that along as soon as I find out. UPDATE: #sloansportsconf)
Quickie: Suh, EA, LeBron, Bubble, More
It's a good morning for some predictions, which lead today's SN column:
*Erin Andrews is going to win Dancing With the Stars. It's totally obvious.
*LeBron will sell more No. 6 jerseys in the final three months of this year than he will in the previous 2 or 3 seasons.
*Julius Peppers AND Darren Sproles to the Redskins? Can totally see it.
*Here was my biggest prediction: In 3 seasons, Ndamukong Suh may be an NFL star... but Sam Bradford won't even be starting.
*I love that the US-Canada hockey game earned an insane audience -- it will NOT carry over to the NHL; this was a once-in-a-couple-generations event in American sports, let alone hockey.
*As usual, I really really want to pick Georgetown to go to the Final Four. As usual, they are making it very difficult on me.
(I was just thinking: To the folks who think that expanding the NCAA Tournament to 96 teams will water it down -- and I couldn't disagree more, because the Tournament has always been about the format, not the talent -- I want them to defend some of these mediocrities that are on the Bubble in the 64-team format. In advance of tonight's Clemson-GA Tech game, I was checking to see where on the Bubble they were, and SN had them both as 8-seeds, which isn't even close to the Bubble. Does anyone think that either Clemson or GT is going to make noise in the Tournament? In fact, if both were 8s, I'd probably pick them both to lose to the 9-seed and not even make it past the 1st day. This is hardly supportive that the current set-up is rigorous. Now, you could make the argument that expanding that only waters things down further, but I'd argue that things are already pretty watered-down, so you might as well add two more rounds, which will only increase fan interest. Again: Most fans don't care about the fact that teams on the periphery aren't all that good; they just want to fill out their bracket and watch close games during the work day. /end digression)
Check out the complete SN column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Quickie: Canada, Purdue, Combine, More
"It feels like s--t." I feel for Ryan Miller and his USA Hockey teammates -- and all USA Hockey fans everywhere, both die-hard and fair-weather -- but, as I lead in today's SN column, it is very difficult to begrudge this hockey gold to the Canadians.
But if you want grudging, the rest of the column will make you happy:
*I remain stunned that any self-respecting bracket expert would even consider Purdue a No. 1 seed -- and that was BEFORE they lost to Michigan State. Let's hope people come to their senses and put them where they should be -- around No. 4.
*Before this weekend, I thought my pick of Syracuse to win the national title was safe but not so conventional that I would be out-bracketed by the masses picking either Kansas or Kentucky. But now EVERYONE will be on the Cuse bandwagon. Drat.
*Speaking of KU/UK, those are precisely the kind of losses that should make you tremble as you stick with the chalk on your bracket in two weeks. (Two weeks? TWO WEEKS!) I still don't know what to make of New Mexico. But I really like Xavier (and Richmond, for that matter).
*Yeah, yeah: I'm in the tank for Tebow, but his Combine measurables WERE impressive -- he will enter the NFL as just about the most overall athletic QB in the league, when you factor in speed, size, strength... my only disappointment is that he didn't do the bench press.
(That I'm in the tank for Tebow also influences my criticism about Bradford and Clausen, but I don't think I'm the only one to question that Bradford (a) has a bum shoulder that may or may not stand up to constant pounding from NFL DE's, and (b) played in just as much of a "system" as any QB in the country. Clausen may or may not be good, but is certainly unlikable.)
*Shaq's out for the rest of the season? Shrug. The Lakers win over the Nuggets feels like foreshadowing. More on the Mavs later -- I was at the Mavs-Hawks game on Friday night and have a few thoughts on both teams.
*Yesterday while in Atlanta, I had the chance to play a die-hard Quickie reader (and Morning Quickie regular) in a game of H-O-R-S-E, and if I lost, I owed him a shout-out in the column. Well, I lost -- barely (and I have some embarrassing potential YouTube video to prove it) -- but I neglected to put him in the SN column today, but I'll make it up in a post later today. And perhaps posting the video.
Complete SN column here.
It's March, everyone. Full-throttle college hoops from here on out. Isn't that glorious?
-- D.S.
But if you want grudging, the rest of the column will make you happy:
*I remain stunned that any self-respecting bracket expert would even consider Purdue a No. 1 seed -- and that was BEFORE they lost to Michigan State. Let's hope people come to their senses and put them where they should be -- around No. 4.
*Before this weekend, I thought my pick of Syracuse to win the national title was safe but not so conventional that I would be out-bracketed by the masses picking either Kansas or Kentucky. But now EVERYONE will be on the Cuse bandwagon. Drat.
*Speaking of KU/UK, those are precisely the kind of losses that should make you tremble as you stick with the chalk on your bracket in two weeks. (Two weeks? TWO WEEKS!) I still don't know what to make of New Mexico. But I really like Xavier (and Richmond, for that matter).
*Yeah, yeah: I'm in the tank for Tebow, but his Combine measurables WERE impressive -- he will enter the NFL as just about the most overall athletic QB in the league, when you factor in speed, size, strength... my only disappointment is that he didn't do the bench press.
(That I'm in the tank for Tebow also influences my criticism about Bradford and Clausen, but I don't think I'm the only one to question that Bradford (a) has a bum shoulder that may or may not stand up to constant pounding from NFL DE's, and (b) played in just as much of a "system" as any QB in the country. Clausen may or may not be good, but is certainly unlikable.)
*Shaq's out for the rest of the season? Shrug. The Lakers win over the Nuggets feels like foreshadowing. More on the Mavs later -- I was at the Mavs-Hawks game on Friday night and have a few thoughts on both teams.
*Yesterday while in Atlanta, I had the chance to play a die-hard Quickie reader (and Morning Quickie regular) in a game of H-O-R-S-E, and if I lost, I owed him a shout-out in the column. Well, I lost -- barely (and I have some embarrassing potential YouTube video to prove it) -- but I neglected to put him in the SN column today, but I'll make it up in a post later today. And perhaps posting the video.
Complete SN column here.
It's March, everyone. Full-throttle college hoops from here on out. Isn't that glorious?
-- D.S.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday 02/28 (Very) Quickie
Sorry for the light posting this weekend. I'm in Atlanta and access to the Web is spotty. Unfortunately, I'm flying back during the US-Canada hockey game, but hoping I can track things via in-flight WiFi.
Meanwhile, aside from satisfying a craving for Chik-Fil-A and Waffle House, I got a chance to go to the Hawks game on Friday night. More on that tomorrow, but it was a great game. I had never seen Jason Kidd in person, so the fact that he had a monster triple-double -- not to mention that crazy play where he ran into the Hawks coach -- was fun. I have a lot of thoughts on Josh Smith, coming tomorrow.
The Kansas and Kentucky losses are precisely the kind of late-season results that can mess with your mind, as we all start to think about how to fill out our brackets. I had been sitting on Syracuse as my pick to win it all -- thinking the majority of people would pick KU or UK -- but after yesterday, Syracuse will likely be the popular pick to win it all. (We'll see if the Big East Tournament cools things off.)
On a random note, I cannot believe that people are still listing Purdue as a No. 1 seed -- these "real-time" brackets completely undercut their credibility by not dropping Purdue until they prove that, without Hummel, they are still worthy of a No. 1. Let's wait and see what they do against Michigan State -- or even in the Big Ten tournament. But I stand by Friday's column: Without Hummel, they are -- at best -- a 4-seed. Tournament seeding should reflect late-season injuries.
But, anyway, yesterday was a great day of games -- precisely for the craziness. (I watched the Florida loss to Georgia in UGA country, and it sucked. I don't understand how Florida can beat Tennessee one night, then lose to Georgia the next; actually, that's exactly the profile of a Bubble team that does NOT deserve to get in... if they do, I can't imagine not picking them to get bounced out early.)
I loved that New Mexico win over BYU -- but I have no idea how to value UNM (or BYU, for that matter) against the Tournament field. Are the Lobos a Xavier-style squad that will make a run to the Elite Eight? Or a nouveau riche pretender that will earn a 3-seed only to flame out early, like South Carolina in 1997 (2-seed loss to Coppin State).
Anyway, complete catch-up tomorrow, both in the SN column and here on the blog. The USA-Canada hockey game should be insane -- I was too young for 1980 (as is anyone under the age of 40), and so this is arguably the most interesting or exciting hockey game that I or anyone under the age of 40 can remember. I'm bummed to not be able to watch it live, but hopefully I can follow the live-blogs and tweets about it, then catch extended highlights. That'll teach me to not bring my laptop on the road for the weekend. If I had to make a Quickie jinx prediction, it would be that Canada is going to win -- it is just easier to be fueled by justifiable revenge than it is to find the power to pull a second straight upset over a superior team on its home ice. I didn't think it was possible for otherwise docile Canadians to get insanely fired up, but this would be the moment.
-- D.S.
--
Meanwhile, aside from satisfying a craving for Chik-Fil-A and Waffle House, I got a chance to go to the Hawks game on Friday night. More on that tomorrow, but it was a great game. I had never seen Jason Kidd in person, so the fact that he had a monster triple-double -- not to mention that crazy play where he ran into the Hawks coach -- was fun. I have a lot of thoughts on Josh Smith, coming tomorrow.
The Kansas and Kentucky losses are precisely the kind of late-season results that can mess with your mind, as we all start to think about how to fill out our brackets. I had been sitting on Syracuse as my pick to win it all -- thinking the majority of people would pick KU or UK -- but after yesterday, Syracuse will likely be the popular pick to win it all. (We'll see if the Big East Tournament cools things off.)
On a random note, I cannot believe that people are still listing Purdue as a No. 1 seed -- these "real-time" brackets completely undercut their credibility by not dropping Purdue until they prove that, without Hummel, they are still worthy of a No. 1. Let's wait and see what they do against Michigan State -- or even in the Big Ten tournament. But I stand by Friday's column: Without Hummel, they are -- at best -- a 4-seed. Tournament seeding should reflect late-season injuries.
But, anyway, yesterday was a great day of games -- precisely for the craziness. (I watched the Florida loss to Georgia in UGA country, and it sucked. I don't understand how Florida can beat Tennessee one night, then lose to Georgia the next; actually, that's exactly the profile of a Bubble team that does NOT deserve to get in... if they do, I can't imagine not picking them to get bounced out early.)
I loved that New Mexico win over BYU -- but I have no idea how to value UNM (or BYU, for that matter) against the Tournament field. Are the Lobos a Xavier-style squad that will make a run to the Elite Eight? Or a nouveau riche pretender that will earn a 3-seed only to flame out early, like South Carolina in 1997 (2-seed loss to Coppin State).
Anyway, complete catch-up tomorrow, both in the SN column and here on the blog. The USA-Canada hockey game should be insane -- I was too young for 1980 (as is anyone under the age of 40), and so this is arguably the most interesting or exciting hockey game that I or anyone under the age of 40 can remember. I'm bummed to not be able to watch it live, but hopefully I can follow the live-blogs and tweets about it, then catch extended highlights. That'll teach me to not bring my laptop on the road for the weekend. If I had to make a Quickie jinx prediction, it would be that Canada is going to win -- it is just easier to be fueled by justifiable revenge than it is to find the power to pull a second straight upset over a superior team on its home ice. I didn't think it was possible for otherwise docile Canadians to get insanely fired up, but this would be the moment.
-- D.S.
--
Friday, February 26, 2010
Quickie: Kim, Hockey and Olympic Legacy
I feel foolish for having mocked the Winter Olympics before they started as irrelevant and something that most fans don't care about and don't watch.
The ratings have been the biggest they have been in a generation. And some of the performances have been legendary -- Kim last night wasn't just the greatest skating performance of all time, but arguably one of the greatest Winter Olympics performances of all time, period.
For the Olympics to have its greatest moment in its biggest event caps what was overachievement on almost every level for these Games. That's the lead of today's SN column.
There's a lot more. I'm rushing off to try to catch a flight to Atlanta, where I will hopefully, weather-permitting depart and arrive in time to catch the Hawks-Mavs game tonight. More later or via Twitter.
-- D.S.
The ratings have been the biggest they have been in a generation. And some of the performances have been legendary -- Kim last night wasn't just the greatest skating performance of all time, but arguably one of the greatest Winter Olympics performances of all time, period.
For the Olympics to have its greatest moment in its biggest event caps what was overachievement on almost every level for these Games. That's the lead of today's SN column.
There's a lot more. I'm rushing off to try to catch a flight to Atlanta, where I will hopefully, weather-permitting depart and arrive in time to catch the Hawks-Mavs game tonight. More later or via Twitter.
-- D.S.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Quickie: Where Expectations Meet Injuries
I love mashing up topics for my SN column lead, but it really doesn't lend itself to attaching itself to a particular story. For example, I was struck by two very separate pieces of news:
Lindsey Vonn's injury when she fell in yesterday's race, and Robbie Hummel's knee injury in Purdue's win.
I want to tie them back to expectations: Vonn was expected to compete for five medals -- now she might not even get through 4 races, let alone race her 5th. And Purdue is on the short list for bonafide Final Four contenders... that is, if Hummel is healthy. Without him? Not so much.
It's a reality in sports -- just ask Texas football fans about Colt McCoy in the national title game -- and it feels like one of the more unfair bits of random luck.
By all accounts, this should be One Of Those Years for Purdue -- a program for whom Those Years don't come along very often. If Hummel is healthy, they're in it. If not: Tough luck.
Vonn is in a slightly better position: She already has a dramatic gold -- her first race of the Games -- and a bronze, to go with her two spills. Still: Not quite "cover" worthy.
(It won't matter: If the US hockey team wins gold, they will be next week's cover. They better hope no one gets unexpectedly injured.)
More in today's column:
*Sucks to be Russia hockey.
*Canada: Better off for US loss?
*Combine: All about Bradford
*Kobe: Not ready for back-to-backers?
*Bubble pops for Dayton, San Diego St?
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Lindsey Vonn's injury when she fell in yesterday's race, and Robbie Hummel's knee injury in Purdue's win.
I want to tie them back to expectations: Vonn was expected to compete for five medals -- now she might not even get through 4 races, let alone race her 5th. And Purdue is on the short list for bonafide Final Four contenders... that is, if Hummel is healthy. Without him? Not so much.
It's a reality in sports -- just ask Texas football fans about Colt McCoy in the national title game -- and it feels like one of the more unfair bits of random luck.
By all accounts, this should be One Of Those Years for Purdue -- a program for whom Those Years don't come along very often. If Hummel is healthy, they're in it. If not: Tough luck.
Vonn is in a slightly better position: She already has a dramatic gold -- her first race of the Games -- and a bronze, to go with her two spills. Still: Not quite "cover" worthy.
(It won't matter: If the US hockey team wins gold, they will be next week's cover. They better hope no one gets unexpectedly injured.)
More in today's column:
*Sucks to be Russia hockey.
*Canada: Better off for US loss?
*Combine: All about Bradford
*Kobe: Not ready for back-to-backers?
*Bubble pops for Dayton, San Diego St?
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Quickie: Best Game of the Year?
My biggest problem with the US win over Canada was that it lacked "win-or-else" stakes that undermine virtually every regular-season game in every sport (except, relatively, college football).
But that is precisely what makes today's Canada-Russia so awesome: The two pre-Olympic favorites for gold (featuring the top two players in the world, no less), playing with some crazy stakes: The winner moves onto a medal opportunity, the loser is utterly humiliated.
Period. Zero-sum.
This is not a professional championship on the line; this is nationalism at its most fervent. This is psyche. This is bragging rights that make UNC-Duke or Red Sox-Yankees look insubstantial.
I think that it is one of the most intriguing single games of the year -- either the past year or the upcoming year, I don't really care which. (You'll groan, but it reminds me of Alabama-Florida in the SEC title game.)
You all know that I don't know much about hockey -- it's why I stay away from it here and in the SN column. But I think this transcends "just" a hockey game. So it leads today's column.
That's not to say that there isn't a ton more in the column:
*Did Kim just put on the performance of the Olympics?
*Did Kramer suffer the biggest choke of the Olympics?
*NFL Combine: Count me among the "meh" crowd.
*Brian Westbrook: Retire his number, Philly. And maybe he should retire, period.
*Kobe is back: And killing it, of course.
*Florida: Off the Bubble with the most energizing win since the 2007 team made its Tournament run. Naturally, this sets up the Gators getting their clock cleaned on the First Thursday.
*More Bubble: Watch San Diego State (at BYU) and Dayton (at Temple) tonight. If either pull an upset on the road, they should move into the field.
(It's this time of year that I look back on my time as college basketball editor at ESPN.com and remember how much fun I had with the Bubble Watch.)
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
But that is precisely what makes today's Canada-Russia so awesome: The two pre-Olympic favorites for gold (featuring the top two players in the world, no less), playing with some crazy stakes: The winner moves onto a medal opportunity, the loser is utterly humiliated.
Period. Zero-sum.
This is not a professional championship on the line; this is nationalism at its most fervent. This is psyche. This is bragging rights that make UNC-Duke or Red Sox-Yankees look insubstantial.
I think that it is one of the most intriguing single games of the year -- either the past year or the upcoming year, I don't really care which. (You'll groan, but it reminds me of Alabama-Florida in the SEC title game.)
You all know that I don't know much about hockey -- it's why I stay away from it here and in the SN column. But I think this transcends "just" a hockey game. So it leads today's column.
That's not to say that there isn't a ton more in the column:
*Did Kim just put on the performance of the Olympics?
*Did Kramer suffer the biggest choke of the Olympics?
*NFL Combine: Count me among the "meh" crowd.
*Brian Westbrook: Retire his number, Philly. And maybe he should retire, period.
*Kobe is back: And killing it, of course.
*Florida: Off the Bubble with the most energizing win since the 2007 team made its Tournament run. Naturally, this sets up the Gators getting their clock cleaned on the First Thursday.
*More Bubble: Watch San Diego State (at BYU) and Dayton (at Temple) tonight. If either pull an upset on the road, they should move into the field.
(It's this time of year that I look back on my time as college basketball editor at ESPN.com and remember how much fun I had with the Bubble Watch.)
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
2/23 Quickie: Appearances And Reality
Canada hockey has benched its goalie. UConn notches another win over a Top 10 team. Tim Tebow has remade his throwing mechanics. LT will have a new jersey next year. The Hawks won in Utah for the first time in forever.
The common thread of most of the biggest storylines this morning in today's column is that appearances are reality.
Is Luongo better than Brodeur? It doesn't matter: Canada HAD to make a cosmetic change.
Is UConn worthy of making the Tournament? My point in this morning's column is that when you fill out the "at-large" field, you want a couple teams that are inconsistent enough that they could seriously freak out the chalk -- that's UConn.
Are Tim Tebow's new mechanics going to be enough to quiet the haters? As long as he ingrains them, yes. (See Teblog for more on that.)
Is the Hawks win in Salt Lake City one of those "symbolism" games that points to a larger season of breakthrough? Probably. (I'm going to Atlanta this weekend and to the Hawks game on Friday night, so I'll get to see for myself.)
Will LaDainian Tomlinson look weird in another team's jersey? Probably, but all he really wants is those reps. He will go into the Hall of Fame as a Charger, but the LT/Charger era is over.
What I'm trying to figure out is whether I could have that column theme EVERY day, not just today... I don't think so. Some days, it's simply about appearances.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
The common thread of most of the biggest storylines this morning in today's column is that appearances are reality.
Is Luongo better than Brodeur? It doesn't matter: Canada HAD to make a cosmetic change.
Is UConn worthy of making the Tournament? My point in this morning's column is that when you fill out the "at-large" field, you want a couple teams that are inconsistent enough that they could seriously freak out the chalk -- that's UConn.
Are Tim Tebow's new mechanics going to be enough to quiet the haters? As long as he ingrains them, yes. (See Teblog for more on that.)
Is the Hawks win in Salt Lake City one of those "symbolism" games that points to a larger season of breakthrough? Probably. (I'm going to Atlanta this weekend and to the Hawks game on Friday night, so I'll get to see for myself.)
Will LaDainian Tomlinson look weird in another team's jersey? Probably, but all he really wants is those reps. He will go into the Hall of Fame as a Charger, but the LT/Charger era is over.
What I'm trying to figure out is whether I could have that column theme EVERY day, not just today... I don't think so. Some days, it's simply about appearances.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Quickie: Hockey Win Was No Miracle
Forgive me for being entirely underwhelmed by the US hockey win over Canada. Well, not entirely: It was certainly an upset. But hardly anything definitive.
It wasn't for a medal. And, leading up to the game, a lot of folks had gone a long way to downplaying this US squad, talking about 2010 as a stepping stone to REAL success in 2014.
The operating theory I come back to is that this was no more meaningful than any regular-season win. Did the Cavs' win over the Lakers this season really mean anything? How about the Colts beating the Pats? Or the Red Sox beating the Yankees? Or UNC beating Duke?
The proof is in the championship -- or medal. And all that the US has done is implode the old expectations and move themselves into more the more standard scrutiny of American Olympic exceptionalism:
Medal or bust.
That's the lead of today's SN column, but you'll find a lot more, including:
*The most interesting thing about Tiger's thing on Friday.
*Why I'm off the Villanova Final Four bandwagon.
*Why I'm still not convinced the Cavs are the team to beat in the East.
*Why T-Mac saves the Knicks' season.
*Why the Hot Rod circuit is in for a huge change.
*Why Oregon is the new The U.
And more. Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
It wasn't for a medal. And, leading up to the game, a lot of folks had gone a long way to downplaying this US squad, talking about 2010 as a stepping stone to REAL success in 2014.
The operating theory I come back to is that this was no more meaningful than any regular-season win. Did the Cavs' win over the Lakers this season really mean anything? How about the Colts beating the Pats? Or the Red Sox beating the Yankees? Or UNC beating Duke?
The proof is in the championship -- or medal. And all that the US has done is implode the old expectations and move themselves into more the more standard scrutiny of American Olympic exceptionalism:
Medal or bust.
That's the lead of today's SN column, but you'll find a lot more, including:
*The most interesting thing about Tiger's thing on Friday.
*Why I'm off the Villanova Final Four bandwagon.
*Why I'm still not convinced the Cavs are the team to beat in the East.
*Why T-Mac saves the Knicks' season.
*Why the Hot Rod circuit is in for a huge change.
*Why Oregon is the new The U.
And more. Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Tiger Apology Reax
*I'm surprised he didn't specify a return to golf -- he must have been coached that talking about returning to playing would undercut his apology.
*Do I believe he was sincere? I believe he is sincerely sorry that he has to prostrate himself publicly, and I believe he is really sorry about the pain he's caused his wife -- then again, not so sorry that he could keep from engaging in the behavior in the first place. But, yes: I caught whiffs of sincerity.
*A wee bit too much angry defiance at some straw men within the media.
*I have heard plenty of people trying to be publicly contrite talk about their Christianity; I have never heard someone talk about Buddhism. It was the most unexpected and refreshing part of the speech.
*Most sincere moment: The long hug Tiger gave his mom. Now THAT was real.
*Do I believe he was sincere? I believe he is sincerely sorry that he has to prostrate himself publicly, and I believe he is really sorry about the pain he's caused his wife -- then again, not so sorry that he could keep from engaging in the behavior in the first place. But, yes: I caught whiffs of sincerity.
*A wee bit too much angry defiance at some straw men within the media.
*I have heard plenty of people trying to be publicly contrite talk about their Christianity; I have never heard someone talk about Buddhism. It was the most unexpected and refreshing part of the speech.
*Most sincere moment: The long hug Tiger gave his mom. Now THAT was real.
Quickie: Tiger, Olympics, NBA Trades, CBB
"I'm sorry" is a minimum threshold from Tiger this morning. The fact that there won't be any media questions to follow that up -- it's not like the questions would have been more than softballs, from the pliant golf media -- make it much less interesting or even sincere than it could have been.
But the real way Tiger could move the needle -- and change the story -- is simply by announcing when he is returning to golf.
THAT is the story that sports media wants to glom onto; they have been uncomfortable reporting on the scandal from the start, and this puts them back on more familiar ground and allows them to begin the "redemption" angle.
So if Tiger was smart, he would add "I'm back" to "I'm sorry."
Meanwhile, more you'll find in today's SN column:
*The most fascinating thing about the NBA trade-deadline jockeying is that it is entirely about the coming offseason. The Cavs wanted to prove to LeBron that he is better off being surrounded by a contender with top pieces; the Knicks simply want to be able to throw money at LeBron and the running buddy of his choice.
*I'm no ice skating aficionado, but I appreciate when athletes save their best performance for the biggest moment in their careers. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it is about as special as it gets in sports. So I salute you, Evan Lysacek -- particularly in fending off Pluchenko, the reigning Olympic champ.
*It is totally the time of year when I begin to solidify my biases for NCAA Tournament bracket-picking. Syracuse had shaken my confidence when they lost at home to Louisville, but they got it back with a win at Georgetown. (Gonzaga? Not buying.) And the Bracket Buster is less about helping a mid-major get an at-large bid than evaluating which, if any, are potential crashers in the Sweet 16.
Lots more in there. Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
But the real way Tiger could move the needle -- and change the story -- is simply by announcing when he is returning to golf.
THAT is the story that sports media wants to glom onto; they have been uncomfortable reporting on the scandal from the start, and this puts them back on more familiar ground and allows them to begin the "redemption" angle.
So if Tiger was smart, he would add "I'm back" to "I'm sorry."
Meanwhile, more you'll find in today's SN column:
*The most fascinating thing about the NBA trade-deadline jockeying is that it is entirely about the coming offseason. The Cavs wanted to prove to LeBron that he is better off being surrounded by a contender with top pieces; the Knicks simply want to be able to throw money at LeBron and the running buddy of his choice.
*I'm no ice skating aficionado, but I appreciate when athletes save their best performance for the biggest moment in their careers. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, it is about as special as it gets in sports. So I salute you, Evan Lysacek -- particularly in fending off Pluchenko, the reigning Olympic champ.
*It is totally the time of year when I begin to solidify my biases for NCAA Tournament bracket-picking. Syracuse had shaken my confidence when they lost at home to Louisville, but they got it back with a win at Georgetown. (Gonzaga? Not buying.) And the Bracket Buster is less about helping a mid-major get an at-large bid than evaluating which, if any, are potential crashers in the Sweet 16.
Lots more in there. Check out the complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Quickie: Tiger Hasn't Changed At All
I had to take the lead of today's SN column to tee off on this Tiger "press conference," on a few levels:
(1) Tiger: What a fool. This kind of "no questions" insulation is what got him into trouble in the first place. Hard to believe his advisors were OK with that.
(2) The golf media: Any reporter that is hand-picked by Tiger to watch his press conference should probably be taken off the Tiger beat -- if not the golf beat -- by their editor.
Compounding the ridiculousness is that these hand-picked media toadies aren't even allowed to ask Tiger what would invariably be softball questions! They don't even get to stand in the same room as Tiger and his flunkies. The "media" has to stand in a side room, and they don't get to ask questions. One more time: What self-respecting editor would let their reporter be used like that?
I appreciate the need to show the statement live on TV -- it's news. Check that: It's p.r. performed by a newsworthy subject. (Then again, that's 98 percent of journalism sourcing.)
But I hope it comes with some side commentary from the media folks that don't go for the easy "Tiger redemption" narrative that Team Tiger is surely banking on (and golf media would love to be able to pick up, leaving the unseemly storyline behind -- not that they were covering it particularly aggressively, if at all).
As you can see: I'm a bit fired up about this.
More in today's column: OK, I'm ready to move the Cavs ahead of the Magic as my team to beat in the East. Jamison defends Rashard Lewis really well, and that's what Cleveland needed.
It's hard to pick between Vonn, Shaun and Shani as the biggest star of the Olympics yesterday. Vonn, probably, if only because of the "comeback" storyline. But Shaun might just be the biggest name at the Games. Shani is just effective, and doesn't embrace the p.r. game nearly as effectively or intensely as Vonn and Shaun do.
Purdue gets a win that might put them in consideration for me to pick them into the Final Four; Northwestern gets a loss that is so bad that it's almost better than barely missing the Tournament -- losing a relatively easy must-win at home to Penn State should disqualify any bubble team. Ridiculous.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
(1) Tiger: What a fool. This kind of "no questions" insulation is what got him into trouble in the first place. Hard to believe his advisors were OK with that.
(2) The golf media: Any reporter that is hand-picked by Tiger to watch his press conference should probably be taken off the Tiger beat -- if not the golf beat -- by their editor.
Compounding the ridiculousness is that these hand-picked media toadies aren't even allowed to ask Tiger what would invariably be softball questions! They don't even get to stand in the same room as Tiger and his flunkies. The "media" has to stand in a side room, and they don't get to ask questions. One more time: What self-respecting editor would let their reporter be used like that?
I appreciate the need to show the statement live on TV -- it's news. Check that: It's p.r. performed by a newsworthy subject. (Then again, that's 98 percent of journalism sourcing.)
But I hope it comes with some side commentary from the media folks that don't go for the easy "Tiger redemption" narrative that Team Tiger is surely banking on (and golf media would love to be able to pick up, leaving the unseemly storyline behind -- not that they were covering it particularly aggressively, if at all).
As you can see: I'm a bit fired up about this.
More in today's column: OK, I'm ready to move the Cavs ahead of the Magic as my team to beat in the East. Jamison defends Rashard Lewis really well, and that's what Cleveland needed.
It's hard to pick between Vonn, Shaun and Shani as the biggest star of the Olympics yesterday. Vonn, probably, if only because of the "comeback" storyline. But Shaun might just be the biggest name at the Games. Shani is just effective, and doesn't embrace the p.r. game nearly as effectively or intensely as Vonn and Shaun do.
Purdue gets a win that might put them in consideration for me to pick them into the Final Four; Northwestern gets a loss that is so bad that it's almost better than barely missing the Tournament -- losing a relatively easy must-win at home to Penn State should disqualify any bubble team. Ridiculous.
Complete column here. More later.
-- D.S.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Quickie: Birthday Fun
So today is my birthday. To celebrate (or "celebrate?"), I'm hopping on a plane -- weather-permitting -- and going to Seattle, a city I last left in my rear-view mirror nearly 13 years ago. If the flight is long enough -- oh, and it is -- I'm going to try to put together a post about my return to the West, because it is loaded with all sorts of nostalgia and symbolism.
In the meantime, here is today's SN column. Sprinting off to the airport. More later, if I can get it posted.
-- D.S.
In the meantime, here is today's SN column. Sprinting off to the airport. More later, if I can get it posted.
-- D.S.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Quickie: NBA 108K, Daytona Pothole
Your work or school may be closed today, but the Wake-Up Call at SportingNews.com published in full force this morning, focusing on a couple of big stories from the weekend:
*108,000 people is a lot to watch a basketball game in a single arena. I care more about that particular superlative novelty than the actual game itself.
*Sorry, Jamie McMurray. This will be remembered as the "Pothole 500."
*Yesterday's losses by Syracuse and Georgetown are enough to really shake whatever confidence you had in them as top-tier Final Four contenders.
*More lamentation of the Wizards-Mavs trade, plus a look-ahead at what Amare would do to the balance-of-power in the East if he joined the Cavs.
*In praise of the underappreciated Frank Thomas (and the underpaid Tim Lincecum).
There's a lot more in there. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
*108,000 people is a lot to watch a basketball game in a single arena. I care more about that particular superlative novelty than the actual game itself.
*Sorry, Jamie McMurray. This will be remembered as the "Pothole 500."
*Yesterday's losses by Syracuse and Georgetown are enough to really shake whatever confidence you had in them as top-tier Final Four contenders.
*More lamentation of the Wizards-Mavs trade, plus a look-ahead at what Amare would do to the balance-of-power in the East if he joined the Cavs.
*In praise of the underappreciated Frank Thomas (and the underpaid Tim Lincecum).
There's a lot more in there. Check it out here. More later.
-- D.S.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Sunday (Very) Quickie
That was a truly underwhelming dunk contest.
Convincing win for Kentucky: Wall was his usual dominant self. Eric Bledsoe had 16 in the 2nd half -- if Wall/Bledsoe is the best backcourt in the country, it begs the question if there has ever been a better two-freshmen backcourt in the country. The only one I can think of is Jalen Rose-Jimmy King, but I'm sure I'm missing someone.
Congrats to Hannah Kearney.
Question for Apolo Ohno: Do you really accept that silver pridefully, when the only reason you won was because two other skaters ahead of you crashed? I mean: I appreciate that "staying upright for the full race" is a key qualification to winning, but it seems like he backed his way into the record. Of course, other people's mistakes turn losers into winners all the time -- maybe the real lesson is that is precisely the essence of sport and, more specifically, competition.
Mavs-Wiz trade: See the post from last night. It's a steal for Dallas -- I'm particularly a fan of Butler -- and I just with the Wiz had the intellectual honesty to say "We're just dumping salary and we've basically given up. Wouldn't you?" At least they aren't dithering.
-- D.S.
Convincing win for Kentucky: Wall was his usual dominant self. Eric Bledsoe had 16 in the 2nd half -- if Wall/Bledsoe is the best backcourt in the country, it begs the question if there has ever been a better two-freshmen backcourt in the country. The only one I can think of is Jalen Rose-Jimmy King, but I'm sure I'm missing someone.
Congrats to Hannah Kearney.
Question for Apolo Ohno: Do you really accept that silver pridefully, when the only reason you won was because two other skaters ahead of you crashed? I mean: I appreciate that "staying upright for the full race" is a key qualification to winning, but it seems like he backed his way into the record. Of course, other people's mistakes turn losers into winners all the time -- maybe the real lesson is that is precisely the essence of sport and, more specifically, competition.
Mavs-Wiz trade: See the post from last night. It's a steal for Dallas -- I'm particularly a fan of Butler -- and I just with the Wiz had the intellectual honesty to say "We're just dumping salary and we've basically given up. Wouldn't you?" At least they aren't dithering.
-- D.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
