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.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
