Last night's NBA All-Star Game saw the West defeat the East 163-158, and concluded the annual All-Star weekend. Now that the festivities are over, and the NBA's second half is about to begin, I thought I'd share my reflections on all the events, including my favorite, least favorite, and if I enjoyed some of the new rule changes. Here are my official All-Star Weekend reactions.
Celebrity All-Star Game: This was one of my favorite events of the weekend. It's a fun and friendly game, with a semi-competitive atmosphere, and while it's nothing all that special, I nonetheless enjoyed watching it. Kevin Hart really livens up the mood, and is always entertaining. This year his mini-rivalry with Mo'ne Davis made good television, and Davis' spin-layup was one of the highlights of the whole weekend. The list of stars didn't include a ton of really big-names, but it was a nice to see some WNBA players and retired NBA-ers. Overall it was a solid game.
Rising Stars Game & All-Star Game: These games had some very similar characteristics, which is why I lumped them together. For starters, I liked the idea of having the top U.S. youngsters going up against the top international players, and thought it gave the game a bit of an extra level of competition as each side was additionally supporting their countries. Both games as a whole were very close throughout, which contributed to making it fun to watch. However, as far as the actual games go, I'm not a fan of the super fast paced, no defense style of the games. Personally I find it much more entertaining to watch a good NBA game than to see 100 dunks. Of course I understand that no one wants to get hurt, but I think it's a joke when I see a 163-158 score, as it's obvious no one really tried that hard. I just want to know that when I watch a game, guys are going to be giving their all, so the style just doesn't suit me personally.
Shooting Stars Challenge: This contest saw four teams of three, each comprised of an NBA player, WNBA player, and NBA legend. Each team had to make three shots - one to the right of the middle of the paint, a shot from the top of the key, a three from the wing, and then a half-court shot. I was a bit disappointed that they took away a couple shots because teams used to need six shots, and this time they only needed four. Overall though, it is really exciting because any miss in the first three shots takes away precious time needed for nailing a half-court shot, which could take three shots or 30 to make. It's good to watch, but at best it's still a side event, far from the main show.
Skills Challenge: To be blunt, I hated the skills challenge. Instead of having players race against the clock, which made the challenge more tense as players knew how fast they needed to go, but instead they had players go against each other in an eight-man single elimination tournament. I thought it took a lot away from each individual player. Additionally, they took out half the course! All players needed to do in this was to weave around a couple cardboard defenders, make a chest pass, layup, and a three. Basically, the only places anyone could go wrong were the chest pass and three-pointer, and the competition basically came down to who made the three first. In the old days, a player had a layup, cardboard defenders, a chest pass, a bounce pass, a three, another chest pass, another round of defenders, and a final layup, for eight total obstacles instead of four. There were more places for people to mess up, and it was much more about overall speed. In this year's competition, Patrick Beverley never even made a pass on his first attempt, but hit threes on the first try to win every round. You couldn't do that back in the day (man I sound old).
Three Point Contest: Don't change a thing. This contest was awesome. This year we all had the pleasure of seeing perhaps the greatest lineup ever for this competition. You had the Splash Bros, Steph and Klay, Kyle Korver whose the best shooting season ever, two former champions, J.J. Redick, James Harden, and Wes Matthews (least notable of the bunch, but performed very well). The new addition here was allowing players to choose a rack of all money balls, which added in a new layer of strategy and made the competition even more interesting. Plus, in the end, everyone got what they wanted - a lights-out performance from Stephen Curry, plus many other great rounds along with it. It was my favorite part of the entire weekend.
The Dunk Contest: I have mixed feelings about the dunk contest, as I seem to do every year. Zach LaVine was incredible, and had one of the best dunk contest performances I've ever seen. Victor Oladipo had a crazy 540 slam as well, but Mason Plumlee and Giannis Antetokounmpo failed to impress (especially the Greek Freak). The dunk contest is difficult because the NBA wants the best dunkers in the contest, but the players with the most dunks are typically big men, and big men can't throw down the windmills and 360s that smaller guys can. Plumlee did very well for his size, but just won't be able to match LaVine. More issues are that the NBA has had issues finding big name players to participate since Dwight Howard, and that most of the dunks we believe to be possible have been showcased already. But none of these issues can kill the dunk contest. Sure, the last few years have been pretty dull, but LaVine made this year a good one and LeBron might participate in the future. The dunk contest is just such a great concept that every year we'll all watch, and hopefully the dunkers can continue to find ways to be creative.
So those were my opinions on each event. Overall, All-Star Weekend had its flaws, but was still a very enjoyable break in the middle of a long NBA season.
Subscribe To Top Level Sports
Posts
All Comments
Monday, February 16, 2015
Thursday, February 12, 2015
Slow Down the Hype Train: A Problem with Sports Fans part 1: Players
This is the first in a two part series criticizing how sports fans as a whole seem to overhype the best players and teams, comparing them to the all-time greats and having a tendency to use the word "best" more often than it is deserved. This part will concentrate on players, while the second part will concentrate on teams.
Andrew Wiggins is the next LeBron James. Remember when that was all anyone was talking about? While Wiggins was in high school and college he was hyped as one of those "once in a generation" players, only to disappoint everyone by failing to live up to near-impossible expectations. Wiggins, for a rookie, is one heck of a player, but nothing like the animal King James was in first season, averaging nearly 21 points per game to go along with five rebounds and just under six assists.
The Wiggins scenario is one that has played out all too frequently in sports. A year ago, Jadeveon Clowney was being dubbed the next Lawrence Taylor, another unreasonable comparison solely based on high school and college performance. Instead of performing like the greatest defensive player of all time, we are now wondering if Clowney will be able to perform at all after multiple injuries limited Clowney to only appearing in four games for the Texans this season, accumulating just seven tackles in the process. Greg Oden was thought to be the next Shaq. We all know how that turned out- injuries tore everything apart, and Oden is still struggling to even make a roster, having only played in three seasons for a total of just over 100 games since being drafted #1 overall in 2007.
The point I'm trying to make here is that all too often in sports we, the fans, get ahead of ourselves and exaggerate things, and I'm not just talking about hyping draft picks. We put extreme emphasis on the best players, the best teams, the worst teams, and jump to make either unrealistic or unnecessary comparisons at every given opportunity. We all have a tendency to compare the current greats to the best of all time, and tend to rush calling players "great" before they've really proven themselves. All of this can be seen from some of the biggest stories in sports today.
Let's talk about Odell Beckham Jr., something I love to do. Beckham took the world by storm this past season, putting up one of the most impressive rookie seasons in recent memory, marked by his incredible three-finger touchdown grab considered to be one of the greatest catches of all-time (which actually might not be an exaggeration). Immediately Odell began being called one of the best receivers in the league, and receiving comparisons to Randy Moss and Jerry Rice. Does he have the potential to be as good as these all-time greats? He very well might. But will he? It's a totally different question.
People have to understand that things happen. I hope it never happens, but there is the possibility that Odell could get injured. He also could be facing a bit of a reduced role with the return of Victor Cruz, although I still see him getting as many touches as possible. Teams will also no doubt be better adjusted and prepared to guard him after getting the offseason to watch film. The idea here is that Odell hasn't even played a full season yet, so it's not reasonable to start estimated how good his career will be. Sure, his potential might be incredible, but so was Oden's. Shaq's best rebounds per game season came as he was a rookie, and Randy Moss had his highest yards per reception and second highest touchdowns in a year as a rookie. The point is, he might not continue to dominate as much as he has.
Shifting back to basketball, I want to discuss the LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Different from my previous examples, James and Bryant have already established themselves as some of the greatest players to have played the game. Naturally, they've both been the subject of comparisons to the widely considered greatest player of all-time, Michael Jordan, because as I've stated, the sports world tends to want to evaluate the top players with regard to the GOAT (or greatest of all-time). It's why Messi is always compared to Diego Maradona, the best Argentinean ever and one of the greatest soccer players to have ever lived, right up there with Pele, and why the legacies of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are always looked at in relationship to Joe Montana's. But back to James and Bryant, I will say that in both cases I am not a huge fan of the comparisons. To show why, I have to lay out my rules for making player comparisons.
1) Players have to both be either active or retired: there's no use in comparing a rookie to a legend, simply because we don't know how good the rookie will be. We determine how valuable players are through statistics, so it's only fair that if one player has finished their career, we wait for the other one to have a full list of both players' awards and statistics before judging who has a better resume. If you want to compare two active players, compare their value in the current season, unless they have played for the same amount of time, where a career comparison may be appropriate.
2) Players have to have played in a similar era with similar opponent skill level and without any substantial rule changes, or keep time differences in mind during the comparison: there's no use in juxtaposing a 1950s quarterback with a present-day one. The league was so different back then, and a quarterback was great if they could just throw more touchdowns than interceptions. Nowadays Eli Manning puts up a 4410 yard, 30 touchdown and 14 interception season and is called "average" by most (he's a fringe top 10 in reality). The importance of time was shown very recently when Klay Thompson broke* the record for most points in a quarter with 37. Notice the asterisk? That's because the previous record of 33 set by George Gervin was before the 3-point shot existed. If Klay played by those rules, his 37 would be 28.
3) In a sport where players are given specific positions, players should only be judged against players of the same position: LeBron is a small forward, and Michael Jordan is a shooting guard. They are much different players with different roles. Kobe-Jordan is a better comparison. In sports like golf and tennis, this rule doesn't apply, but just don't tell me Roger Clemens was better than Albert Pujols. I might not want to talk to you from that point on.
To wrap up this part, I want to make something clear. The excitement of the general population is a big reason why sports is as exciting as it is. If nobody cared or showed enthusiasm, there would be no point in watching or talking about sports. However, we still need to be reasonable. We can give credit where credit is due, and get excited when someone makes a huge play. It's just when we start using the words "best ever" or start getting ahead of ourselves and trying to compare everyone to legends that we can get ahead of ourselves, and end up looking dumb. So slow down the hype train, and don't hyperbolize for the heck of it. We do it enough already with players, and as I'll explain in part 2, we do quite enough with teams as well.
The Wiggins scenario is one that has played out all too frequently in sports. A year ago, Jadeveon Clowney was being dubbed the next Lawrence Taylor, another unreasonable comparison solely based on high school and college performance. Instead of performing like the greatest defensive player of all time, we are now wondering if Clowney will be able to perform at all after multiple injuries limited Clowney to only appearing in four games for the Texans this season, accumulating just seven tackles in the process. Greg Oden was thought to be the next Shaq. We all know how that turned out- injuries tore everything apart, and Oden is still struggling to even make a roster, having only played in three seasons for a total of just over 100 games since being drafted #1 overall in 2007.
The point I'm trying to make here is that all too often in sports we, the fans, get ahead of ourselves and exaggerate things, and I'm not just talking about hyping draft picks. We put extreme emphasis on the best players, the best teams, the worst teams, and jump to make either unrealistic or unnecessary comparisons at every given opportunity. We all have a tendency to compare the current greats to the best of all time, and tend to rush calling players "great" before they've really proven themselves. All of this can be seen from some of the biggest stories in sports today.
Let's talk about Odell Beckham Jr., something I love to do. Beckham took the world by storm this past season, putting up one of the most impressive rookie seasons in recent memory, marked by his incredible three-finger touchdown grab considered to be one of the greatest catches of all-time (which actually might not be an exaggeration). Immediately Odell began being called one of the best receivers in the league, and receiving comparisons to Randy Moss and Jerry Rice. Does he have the potential to be as good as these all-time greats? He very well might. But will he? It's a totally different question.
People have to understand that things happen. I hope it never happens, but there is the possibility that Odell could get injured. He also could be facing a bit of a reduced role with the return of Victor Cruz, although I still see him getting as many touches as possible. Teams will also no doubt be better adjusted and prepared to guard him after getting the offseason to watch film. The idea here is that Odell hasn't even played a full season yet, so it's not reasonable to start estimated how good his career will be. Sure, his potential might be incredible, but so was Oden's. Shaq's best rebounds per game season came as he was a rookie, and Randy Moss had his highest yards per reception and second highest touchdowns in a year as a rookie. The point is, he might not continue to dominate as much as he has.
Shifting back to basketball, I want to discuss the LeBron James and Kobe Bryant. Different from my previous examples, James and Bryant have already established themselves as some of the greatest players to have played the game. Naturally, they've both been the subject of comparisons to the widely considered greatest player of all-time, Michael Jordan, because as I've stated, the sports world tends to want to evaluate the top players with regard to the GOAT (or greatest of all-time). It's why Messi is always compared to Diego Maradona, the best Argentinean ever and one of the greatest soccer players to have ever lived, right up there with Pele, and why the legacies of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are always looked at in relationship to Joe Montana's. But back to James and Bryant, I will say that in both cases I am not a huge fan of the comparisons. To show why, I have to lay out my rules for making player comparisons.
1) Players have to both be either active or retired: there's no use in comparing a rookie to a legend, simply because we don't know how good the rookie will be. We determine how valuable players are through statistics, so it's only fair that if one player has finished their career, we wait for the other one to have a full list of both players' awards and statistics before judging who has a better resume. If you want to compare two active players, compare their value in the current season, unless they have played for the same amount of time, where a career comparison may be appropriate.
2) Players have to have played in a similar era with similar opponent skill level and without any substantial rule changes, or keep time differences in mind during the comparison: there's no use in juxtaposing a 1950s quarterback with a present-day one. The league was so different back then, and a quarterback was great if they could just throw more touchdowns than interceptions. Nowadays Eli Manning puts up a 4410 yard, 30 touchdown and 14 interception season and is called "average" by most (he's a fringe top 10 in reality). The importance of time was shown very recently when Klay Thompson broke* the record for most points in a quarter with 37. Notice the asterisk? That's because the previous record of 33 set by George Gervin was before the 3-point shot existed. If Klay played by those rules, his 37 would be 28.
3) In a sport where players are given specific positions, players should only be judged against players of the same position: LeBron is a small forward, and Michael Jordan is a shooting guard. They are much different players with different roles. Kobe-Jordan is a better comparison. In sports like golf and tennis, this rule doesn't apply, but just don't tell me Roger Clemens was better than Albert Pujols. I might not want to talk to you from that point on.
To wrap up this part, I want to make something clear. The excitement of the general population is a big reason why sports is as exciting as it is. If nobody cared or showed enthusiasm, there would be no point in watching or talking about sports. However, we still need to be reasonable. We can give credit where credit is due, and get excited when someone makes a huge play. It's just when we start using the words "best ever" or start getting ahead of ourselves and trying to compare everyone to legends that we can get ahead of ourselves, and end up looking dumb. So slow down the hype train, and don't hyperbolize for the heck of it. We do it enough already with players, and as I'll explain in part 2, we do quite enough with teams as well.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Introducing: Connoracketology (Week 14)
This version of Connoracketology uses games played through Feb. 8, 2015
Welcome to Connoracketology, where I attempt to predict the 68-team field for March Madness if the season ended today. This weekly series will be replacing my weekly NFL picks series, and will come out every Monday, coinciding with the weekly AP Poll Rankings until the Monday before Selection Sunday, when the actual 68-team field is announced.
For those unfamiliar with this idea, and probably wondering what the heck the name of this series means, here's the basics. Bracketology is the word sports fans use for the science of predicting which teams will make it into March Madness. People such as Joe Lunardi of ESPN, and Jerry Palm of CBS Sports updated their predictions frequently and are used as guides of how teams are doing, and how their likelihoods of making March Madness changes over time. I've attempted to do the same as Lunardi and Palm, but with my own opinion's on each team.
Let me tell you, this was one of the hardest things I've ever done for the blog. The process started on Thursday with me making a list of the automatic qualifiers and then using all kinds of data to select the at-large bids, to create my 68 team field, as well as giving each team a range of seeds I felt they would be appropriate in. On Friday I created my first seeding of the teams. Saturday and Sunday I spent watching games and making note of who should move up and down. Today, I updated a few automatic qualifiers which had changed and re-seeded the teams. Very few teams stayed in their same exact position, and two new teams entered the field.
The field is comprised of 32 teams which are automatic qualifiers, meaning they have the best record in their conference (bolded), and 36 at-large bids which are the best remaining teams from all the other conferences. Teams participating in play-in games, which are the four worst at-large teams and automatic qualifiers will be italicized in the list.
The list reads top to bottom, from 1 seeds through 16 seeds, and from left to right within the seeds. For instance, the first team in the 1 seed category is better than the second team in that category, and so forth.
Without further ado, here is my tournament field if the season ended now.
Welcome to Connoracketology, where I attempt to predict the 68-team field for March Madness if the season ended today. This weekly series will be replacing my weekly NFL picks series, and will come out every Monday, coinciding with the weekly AP Poll Rankings until the Monday before Selection Sunday, when the actual 68-team field is announced.
For those unfamiliar with this idea, and probably wondering what the heck the name of this series means, here's the basics. Bracketology is the word sports fans use for the science of predicting which teams will make it into March Madness. People such as Joe Lunardi of ESPN, and Jerry Palm of CBS Sports updated their predictions frequently and are used as guides of how teams are doing, and how their likelihoods of making March Madness changes over time. I've attempted to do the same as Lunardi and Palm, but with my own opinion's on each team.
Let me tell you, this was one of the hardest things I've ever done for the blog. The process started on Thursday with me making a list of the automatic qualifiers and then using all kinds of data to select the at-large bids, to create my 68 team field, as well as giving each team a range of seeds I felt they would be appropriate in. On Friday I created my first seeding of the teams. Saturday and Sunday I spent watching games and making note of who should move up and down. Today, I updated a few automatic qualifiers which had changed and re-seeded the teams. Very few teams stayed in their same exact position, and two new teams entered the field.
The field is comprised of 32 teams which are automatic qualifiers, meaning they have the best record in their conference (bolded), and 36 at-large bids which are the best remaining teams from all the other conferences. Teams participating in play-in games, which are the four worst at-large teams and automatic qualifiers will be italicized in the list.
The list reads top to bottom, from 1 seeds through 16 seeds, and from left to right within the seeds. For instance, the first team in the 1 seed category is better than the second team in that category, and so forth.
Without further ado, here is my tournament field if the season ended now.
1s: Kentucky, Virginia, Duke, Gonzaga
2s: Wisconsin, Villanova, Kansas, Arizona
3s: Louisville, Utah,
North Carolina, Iowa St
4s: Notre Dame,
Baylor, Oklahoma, Northern Iowa
5s: Wichita St, VCU, Butler, Maryland
6s: West Virginia,
Arkansas, Providence, Ohio State
7s: Georgetown, SMU,
Georgia, Oklahoma St
8s: Indiana, Cincinnati,
Xavier, San Diego St
9s: Texas, Ole Miss,
Iowa, Stanford
10s: Texas A&M, Dayton, Michigan St, Colorado St
11s: Seton Hall, LSU, Tulsa,
Old Dominion, Illinois
12s: Temple, St. Johns, Stephen F. Austin, Wofford, Murray St
13s: Harvard, Iona, Louisiana Tech, Bowling
Green
14s: Valparaiso, William & Mary, UC Davis, NC
Central
15s: High Point, Albany, New Mexico St, UL Monroe
16s: North Dakota St, Sacramento St, St Francis, North Florida, Colgate, Alabama
St
First Four Out: George Washington, Purdue, Miami (Fl), Rhode Island
Next Four Out: UCLA, Boise St, Oregon, NC State
Barely Hanging: Davidson, BYU, Green Bay, St. Mary's
# of Tournament Bids by Conference:
Big 12: 7
Big East: 7
Big Ten: 7
SEC: 6
ACC: 5 (and weirdly none worse than a 4 seed)
American: 4
Atlantic 10: 3
PAC-12: 3
Conference USA: 2
Missouri Valley: 2
Mountain West: 2
21 others: 1
Bracket Notes:
I am fully aware that most people see Gonzaga as the #3 overall team in the field, ahead of Duke, but in this instance I felt that Duke's recent performances in huge wins over Virginia and Notre Dame pull them up more so than Gonzaga was pulled down. There is a large gap between Gonzaga at #4 overall and Wisconsin at #5.
It was interesting filling out the 2-4 seeds in the bracket because while I was expecting tons of change over my rough draft from Friday, many teams lost over the weekend, including Kansas, Arizona, Lousiville, Notre Dame, Maryland, West Virginia and VCU. Many other teams lost earlier in the week, namely North Carolina and Iowa State. As a result, the #2 line stayed the same except in a different order, and the only real gains were made by the few teams that didn't lose, such as Utah and Baylor, who were able to jump several spots.
This is unrelated, but I feel this year there will be a large number of automatic qualifiers that knock off top teams. Many of the 3-5s seem a bit weak to me, and 12 seeds like Murray State and Stephen F. Austin are scary, as well as 14s like UC Davis and Valparaiso.
Comment or message me with any questions about why I seeded teams where I did, or why I didn't include a team in the field.
Connor
Friday, February 6, 2015
CP Newspaper: Basketball team in close race for playoff spot
This is an article I wrote for the College Park school newspaper about the school's varsity basketball team.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now past the halfway point of district play, the varsity boys basketball team finds itself in the midst of a fight to secure one of District 16-6A's
four playoff spots. While the 14-15 Cavaliers, currently 3-5 in district, will not be repeating as district
champions, they have still managed to keep themselves in contention despite losing several key players from last year's team, including
last season's three top scorers.
For the Cavaliers, preparation for the tough competition in district
play began in non-district season, as the Cavaliers played many highly skilled
teams in the early weeks of the year.
“We played one of the toughest non-district schedules in the state,”
Head Coach Clifton McNeely said. “We
played eight state ranked teams and so we did our diligence in seeking out the
best possible teams to play against.”
To make matters tougher, most of those games were played on either a
neutral court in tournaments or at the opposing team's gym. The only home game in the first part of the
season came in a win against Lufkin, Nov. 24.
After that, the next home game did not come until the new year, Jan.
2 against Atascocita. However,
when the team is at home, they played well, going 3-1 with the only loss coming
to Atascocita, ranked second in the entire state.
In Tuesday night's game against the Highlanders to a sold out crowd, the Cavs did not come away with the win they needed. The pace of the game kept fans on their feet as the capacity crowd celebrated every Cav score. Even though the game went back and forth, The Woodlands pulled out the win.
The team has a mix of both underclassmen and seniors that helps the team
succeed. Several key players from last season have returned, and
they are joined by several new faces ready to contribute.
“Dax Deboer, McKinley Green, Quentin Grimes
and Jordan Gilliam bring youth and talent,” Coach McNeely said. “Brett Reed, Chandler Morris, Eric Kelley and
Stuart Filkowski bring experience from last year's team that had great
success.”
The team, led by Green and Morris, have shown
great improvements since the beginning of the season.
“We had many players who had no varsity
experience and some who played minor roles last season,” Coach McNeely
said. “We have gotten better each game
because players are getting experience at the 6A level and that is essential to
success.
The team has shown great teamwork, as six
players on the team average over six points a game, including over 13 per game
from the team's leading scorer, Senior Brett Reed, and over 63 percent of the
baskets the team makes come from assists.
The team anticipates all their hard work pays
off with a spot in the playoffs. It will
not be easy, but the team feels up to the challenge.
“I want every senior class to experience the
playoffs,” Coach McNeely said. “Getting
to the playoffs each and every year will always be our goal. The playoffs are in reach and once we secure
a spot our goal will be to advance.”
The Cavaliers will need to finish strong to accomplish their goals, as they are currently fifth in district, just on the outside looking in. However, they have big opportunities to make up ground over the next few weeks with games against Oak Ridge, Summer Creek, Kingwood, and Conroe.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Why College Basketball is my Favorite Sport
Now that the Super Bowl has ended, and football is done (at least for a few weeks before the focus shifts to pro days and the draft), it's the annual time of the year where sports fans scramble to find something new to latch on to. Some people latch onto the NBA, or the NHL, while others begin to watch college basketball avidly in what begins a scramble to learn as much as possible before March Madness starts. I find it very unfortunate that the mass majority of sports fans don't even think about college basketball until February, if they ever do at all. I think everyone is seriously missing out.
I've been watching college basketball since the first week of November. Since then it's become nearly a ritual for me to catch a game on weeknights, and load up on Saturdays when games are played all day long. Why do I put in the effort to watch so college basketball? It's because although I really love a lot of sports, including football, basketball, and soccer, college basketball for me just takes the cake. Here's why college basketball is my favorite sport, and why I think the entire world should stop ignoring the first two thirds of the season and hop on the bandwagon with me.
Firstly, college basketball is always there. Seriously, rain or shine, no matter what day of the week it is, there will be games. And while the same can be said for some sports such as baseball, the sheer number of games played every day in college basketball is remarkable. Today, Wednesday, is a pretty average day for games. There's 48 of them. Yeah. That's what happens when 351 teams play games about twice a week. Every day becomes game day. And when there's 48 games on, you know there's going to be several good ones. How many sports can say that several top teams are in good matchups daily? Even the slowest days of the week have double digit games, and it's very rare for there to be a day where no ranked teams are in action. And don't even get me started on Saturday, when most teams are in action. For example, there are 144 games to be played this upcoming Saturday. You can seriously watch basketball from about 10 a.m. to 1 a.m. Sunday (that's central time for me) if you feel like it (and I have sometimes). To put it simply, there are more games, and better games, in college basketball. There's always something to watch, and even if none of the best teams are on, you could always scout some of the better teams from smaller conferences (and sometimes that's more fun).
The next reason is that every year provides endless possibilities. I'll tell you what I mean by that. In some sports, before the season even starts you have a good idea of who the best teams are, and this list stays pretty accurate for the entire season. On the other hand, some teams are stuck in a never-ending cycle of losing, and going into the year even their diehard fans have little to look forward to. In college basketball, that's simply not the case. Every year, some of the best teams and best stories come from colleges you don't even know exist. Sometimes all it takes is a good coach, one star player, or a few upsets to take a team that no one was talking about to the top. Jimmer Fredette's BYU teams come to mind. Fredette was such a skilled scorer that BYU instantly became one of the most exciting teams in the country to watch, as everyone waited eagerly to see what he would do next. Gregg Marshall has turned a nobody school like Wichita State into a giant that no one wants to play, just because his coaching style worked so perfectly with the players on his team. Other examples include Davidson and Butler. At the same time, some of the top schools will struggle, such as Florida this season, who started the year ranked #7, but are currently 12-10. Of course, many of the top teams are able to retain strong teams from year to year, which is how their legacies are created. These are the Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, and Dukes of the world. Some of the best matchups are between the teams who have always been good and the teams that have seemingly come out of nowhere.
Building on my previous point, a good team can come from anywhere. Sure, the same conferences you see called the "power 5" in college football have some good basketball programs. But then again, so does everywhere else. The ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac 12, and SEC have historically been the "power 6" of basketball, but there have always been tons of other teams recognized as being just as good if not better than many teams from power conferences. In addition, usually the bottom teams from these conferences are no better than slightly above average teams across the nation, and these are the biggest name schools. But now, the idea that some conferences have huge advantages over others (think the SEC of college football especially), just doesn't exist. With all the conference alignment going on recently, the American conference, Atlantic 10, Mountain West, and Missouri Valley have especially jumped out as other quality conference producing several really good teams on a year to year basis, something unheard of in other conference sports. While only one college football team outside of the power 5 finished the year ranked (Boise State), just this week in college basketball there are four outside of what is dubbed the main 6, with plenty more also receiving votes. With this increasing number of teams and conferences with great depth, the number of teams that can really get hot and pull off a good stretch of games is increasing rapidly. The overall quality of basketball is rising, and we are soon approaching a point where most teams have a chance at winning most of the games they play. There are becoming less and less "sure things".
Another big plus to college basketball is the schedule. Firstly, the season length of approximately 30 games is ideal. Every game really means something, and teams can't afford to go on big losing streaks, like an NBA or MLB team can. However, it does give them time to learn and grow as teams, and can be forgiving of a bad loss, unlike college football. It allows teams to have tons of control over their non conference schedule, playing a wide variety of opponents (usually around 12-14, compared to college football's 3), while also being able to play every team in their conference at least once, and in many conferences twice. Scheduling really matters in college basketball, and it can make or break a season. The way top college football teams can schedule cupcake games just to go into conference play undefeated can't occur in basketball because when the selection committee decides which teams make it into March Madness, strength of schedule is one of the main factors they look at. This encourages teams to play highly competitive games in the non conference, pitting great teams against each other with the goal of increasing RPI, strength of schedule, and adding quality wins to one's tournament resume. Great teams from less recognizable conferences have to really schedule well, as they won't get as many big games in their conference, and losses to teams in the Sun Belt, for example, are much worse than losses to Big 12 teams. So, these schools must schedule tough teams as well in order to give them chances to have big games to bolster their chances at an at-large bid into March Madness. No matter how you look at it, the non conference schedule is crucial, and has made and messed up many teams.
Within the conference, teams are not only sparring for bragging rights and 1st place, but for top seeds in their conference tournaments, where they can win an automatic bid into the NCAA Tournament. This added incentive to each game increases the level of competition and reinforces the fact that teams need to give their all every time they step on the court. Oh, and by the way, rivalries. Duke and North Carolina get to play each other twice a year, and the same goes for Kansas and Kansas State, Kentucky and Florida, and many others. The way the schedule is set up encourages the creation of intriguing matchups that make the entire season interesting.
One of the biggest reasons that I love college basketball is that the atmosphere of the games is addicting. Every game is so important to these players, and you can visibly see them giving it their all on every single play. The effort everyone gives and how much passion they have for the game exceeds that of any other sport. It genuinely seems that every player plays every game as if it were their last, because if they get injured it very well may be. Unlike professional sports, they aren't getting paid, and their future isn't guaranteed. For 98% of them, this is the end of their playing careers, and for 100% of them, they play for the love of the game. The celebrations are incredible, and unlike anything I've ever seen. The same can be said for the looks of heartbreak and disappointment after losing a close game. College basketball fans go absolutely mental throughout each and every contest, with relentless chanting and support. Each school's band is completely immersed in the game, and no matter who's playing, there's an almost indescribable sense of pure thrill and emotion that runs wild in these gyms. When you see a team knock down a buzzer-beater three to win the game, and the bench starts screaming and jumping up and down, the entire team creates a dog pile on top of the hero of the day, the fans storm the court, the announcers can't catch their breaths, and the opposing team is filled with looks of agony and disgust, you'll know what I mean.
Finally, we've reached my final reason that college basketball is my favorite sport, and sorry for the cliche, but I've saved the best for last. I could've summed up this entire post in two words, because everything I've talked about contributes to this phenomena. MARCH MADNESS. The single, undoubtedly best annual sports event on the face of the Earth. No questions asked. The first weekend of March Madness, and especially the first two days, could quite possibly be my favorite days of the year, right up there with Christmas. The entire regular season is just a numbers game to accumulate enough wins, a higher RPI and BPI, SOS, and quality wins, and anything else that can get you into the big dance, because when the madness starts, anything can happen. The 68 team, three-week tournament symbolizes everything I love about sports including close and competitive games, upsets no one sees coming, pure passion, and people being brought together. This tournament has produced some of the best moments in sports history, and every year it continues to amaze.
Hopefully I've convinced you of how great college basketball can be. If not, just watch some for yourself, I swear it's addicting.
The next reason is that every year provides endless possibilities. I'll tell you what I mean by that. In some sports, before the season even starts you have a good idea of who the best teams are, and this list stays pretty accurate for the entire season. On the other hand, some teams are stuck in a never-ending cycle of losing, and going into the year even their diehard fans have little to look forward to. In college basketball, that's simply not the case. Every year, some of the best teams and best stories come from colleges you don't even know exist. Sometimes all it takes is a good coach, one star player, or a few upsets to take a team that no one was talking about to the top. Jimmer Fredette's BYU teams come to mind. Fredette was such a skilled scorer that BYU instantly became one of the most exciting teams in the country to watch, as everyone waited eagerly to see what he would do next. Gregg Marshall has turned a nobody school like Wichita State into a giant that no one wants to play, just because his coaching style worked so perfectly with the players on his team. Other examples include Davidson and Butler. At the same time, some of the top schools will struggle, such as Florida this season, who started the year ranked #7, but are currently 12-10. Of course, many of the top teams are able to retain strong teams from year to year, which is how their legacies are created. These are the Kentucky, North Carolina, Kansas, and Dukes of the world. Some of the best matchups are between the teams who have always been good and the teams that have seemingly come out of nowhere.
Building on my previous point, a good team can come from anywhere. Sure, the same conferences you see called the "power 5" in college football have some good basketball programs. But then again, so does everywhere else. The ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, Pac 12, and SEC have historically been the "power 6" of basketball, but there have always been tons of other teams recognized as being just as good if not better than many teams from power conferences. In addition, usually the bottom teams from these conferences are no better than slightly above average teams across the nation, and these are the biggest name schools. But now, the idea that some conferences have huge advantages over others (think the SEC of college football especially), just doesn't exist. With all the conference alignment going on recently, the American conference, Atlantic 10, Mountain West, and Missouri Valley have especially jumped out as other quality conference producing several really good teams on a year to year basis, something unheard of in other conference sports. While only one college football team outside of the power 5 finished the year ranked (Boise State), just this week in college basketball there are four outside of what is dubbed the main 6, with plenty more also receiving votes. With this increasing number of teams and conferences with great depth, the number of teams that can really get hot and pull off a good stretch of games is increasing rapidly. The overall quality of basketball is rising, and we are soon approaching a point where most teams have a chance at winning most of the games they play. There are becoming less and less "sure things".
Another big plus to college basketball is the schedule. Firstly, the season length of approximately 30 games is ideal. Every game really means something, and teams can't afford to go on big losing streaks, like an NBA or MLB team can. However, it does give them time to learn and grow as teams, and can be forgiving of a bad loss, unlike college football. It allows teams to have tons of control over their non conference schedule, playing a wide variety of opponents (usually around 12-14, compared to college football's 3), while also being able to play every team in their conference at least once, and in many conferences twice. Scheduling really matters in college basketball, and it can make or break a season. The way top college football teams can schedule cupcake games just to go into conference play undefeated can't occur in basketball because when the selection committee decides which teams make it into March Madness, strength of schedule is one of the main factors they look at. This encourages teams to play highly competitive games in the non conference, pitting great teams against each other with the goal of increasing RPI, strength of schedule, and adding quality wins to one's tournament resume. Great teams from less recognizable conferences have to really schedule well, as they won't get as many big games in their conference, and losses to teams in the Sun Belt, for example, are much worse than losses to Big 12 teams. So, these schools must schedule tough teams as well in order to give them chances to have big games to bolster their chances at an at-large bid into March Madness. No matter how you look at it, the non conference schedule is crucial, and has made and messed up many teams.
Within the conference, teams are not only sparring for bragging rights and 1st place, but for top seeds in their conference tournaments, where they can win an automatic bid into the NCAA Tournament. This added incentive to each game increases the level of competition and reinforces the fact that teams need to give their all every time they step on the court. Oh, and by the way, rivalries. Duke and North Carolina get to play each other twice a year, and the same goes for Kansas and Kansas State, Kentucky and Florida, and many others. The way the schedule is set up encourages the creation of intriguing matchups that make the entire season interesting.
One of the biggest reasons that I love college basketball is that the atmosphere of the games is addicting. Every game is so important to these players, and you can visibly see them giving it their all on every single play. The effort everyone gives and how much passion they have for the game exceeds that of any other sport. It genuinely seems that every player plays every game as if it were their last, because if they get injured it very well may be. Unlike professional sports, they aren't getting paid, and their future isn't guaranteed. For 98% of them, this is the end of their playing careers, and for 100% of them, they play for the love of the game. The celebrations are incredible, and unlike anything I've ever seen. The same can be said for the looks of heartbreak and disappointment after losing a close game. College basketball fans go absolutely mental throughout each and every contest, with relentless chanting and support. Each school's band is completely immersed in the game, and no matter who's playing, there's an almost indescribable sense of pure thrill and emotion that runs wild in these gyms. When you see a team knock down a buzzer-beater three to win the game, and the bench starts screaming and jumping up and down, the entire team creates a dog pile on top of the hero of the day, the fans storm the court, the announcers can't catch their breaths, and the opposing team is filled with looks of agony and disgust, you'll know what I mean.
Finally, we've reached my final reason that college basketball is my favorite sport, and sorry for the cliche, but I've saved the best for last. I could've summed up this entire post in two words, because everything I've talked about contributes to this phenomena. MARCH MADNESS. The single, undoubtedly best annual sports event on the face of the Earth. No questions asked. The first weekend of March Madness, and especially the first two days, could quite possibly be my favorite days of the year, right up there with Christmas. The entire regular season is just a numbers game to accumulate enough wins, a higher RPI and BPI, SOS, and quality wins, and anything else that can get you into the big dance, because when the madness starts, anything can happen. The 68 team, three-week tournament symbolizes everything I love about sports including close and competitive games, upsets no one sees coming, pure passion, and people being brought together. This tournament has produced some of the best moments in sports history, and every year it continues to amaze.
Hopefully I've convinced you of how great college basketball can be. If not, just watch some for yourself, I swear it's addicting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)