I am a huge March Madness junkie. I live and breathe college basketball (you sort of have to if you are born and raised in Kentucky). Hence, the three weeks of the NCAA tournament, as well as the two weeks of conference championships leading up to it, are my favorite time of the year. I take off from work and declare a holiday when the first round begins; I am that big of a junkie.
Today, I wish to point out something that I noticed last year about the tournament that I had never seen happen before and I saw it happen again this year. For the past two years, when the brackets were announced, the best non-BCS schools were paired against each other. When this happens once, it is a coincidence. When it happens two years in a row, you look around and say, "What is going on here?"
Now, I do not know if you (the reader) are a fan of the big schools or a fan of the smaller schools. My two favorite teams come from both, so I can see and argue both sides of this situation. You see, if you haven't already grasped what it means when you pair up non-BCS schools against each other and why it may be important, then I will tell you. By pairing the best non-BCS schools against each other, you insure that one of them moves to the next round - thus insuring a larger payday from the NCAA (this is the conspiracy argument of the big schools). You also insure that less really good non-BCS schools get a chance to knock out big schools early on, depriving them of larger paydays (the little school argument).
In looking at the 2005 and 2006 NCAA tournament brackets, I only found three first round games of non-BCS teams playing each other. In 2005, it was Gonzaga vs. Winthrop. In 2006, it was George Washington vs. N.C. Willmington and Gonzaga vs. Xavier. The rest of the non-BCS schools were matched up against the mid-level teams from the big conferences. Last year, there were four games that pitted some very good non-BCS teams against each other (#5 seed Butler vs. #12 Old Dominion, #8 Brigham Young vs. #9 Xavier, #7 Nevada vs. #10 Creighton and #4 Southern Illinois vs. #13 Holy Cross). Plus, the winner of the Nevada/Creighton game had to play non-BCS power Memphis in the second round, thus eliminating/moving on another non-BCS team. This year, there were four more matchups just like last year (#7 Butler vs. #10 South Alabama, #8 UNLV vs. #9 Kent St., #7 Gonzaga vs. #10 Davidson and #5 Drake vs. #12 Western Kentucky).
Folks, it is apparent that the NCAA selection committee is doing this on purpose. This just doesn't happen by accident as the committee chairman tells the nation each year that the committee works long hours examining each team and tries to make the brackets as fair as possible. My question, the one that I would dearly love to know, is why is the committee doing this?
If you argue for the little schools, then you believe that the committee wants to guarantee that less non-BCS schools can advance to the second and later rounds at the expense of the bigger schools. In looking at the eight teams listed above that had to play each other this year, it is very easy to see all of them beating a lot of the bigger schools that are in this years tournament. They may not be able to beat the elite top four or five, but the others would have been fair game. Thus, you could have had a second and third round filled with non-BCS schools (to the absolute horror of Bob Knight and the evil empire of ESPN, not to mention CBS). CBS loves a Cinderella (it is a grand story for a little while), but no one wants to watch a tournament of nothing but Cinderellas, it is bad for ratings.
If you argue for the big schools, then you believe that the committee wants to guarantee that, at least some, non-BCS schools advance to the next round to have an opportunity to become that Cinderella story that everyone talks about. You say that the committee has caved in to the desires of CBS to have a few of the "little guys" move on to spice up the bracket. You argue this because you believe that with a few days of preparation to get ready, the big schools are not going to lose very many games to the non-BCS teams as their talent is lesser than that of the big schools.
Why does this all matter, well, I will tell you why - it is money. While the NCAA is supposed to be about amateur athletics, it is truly a giant business. CBS paid over a billion dollars for the rights to broadcast the tournament, and they want a good product for that investment. The last figure that I heard claimed that each team making the tournament received one million dollars. Each round that a team advances, increases the payday. Universities have shown themselves to be very greedy when it comes to this kind of money (remember, the BCS was created so that the top conferences would not have to share television and bowl money with smaller schools) so all of the schools are looking at this situation and wondering just who is coming out the best. Frankly, I am wondering that as well.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Technical Difficulties
For those of you who know me, it will come as no surprise when I say that I am not a NASCAR fan. True, I do write about the sport on this blog, but I am not a fan. The NASCAR fan is my wife, "Honey". Because of Honey, I watch a lot of cars making a lot of left turns throughout the year and I have developed a grudging respect for the sport. I mean, c'mon, it takes some skill and talent to drive a car through heavy traffic at 160+ miles per hour for five hundred miles. Regardless of the skill of the drivers though, it has become apparent to me that NASCAR will never become a mainstream sport in this country unless it makes a few changes in its marketing. I do not mean marketing the way you may initially have thought. No, anyone who has been to a race (and I have been to a few) can see that NASCAR knows how to market its drivers as it sells everything that exists with driver numbers and faces plastered everywhere. What I am talking about is television.
For whatever reason, NASCAR markets itself in a way that can only be viewed as retarded on television, and since the old TV is where most people go for information, entertainment or to simply numb their mind, NASCAR needs to make some changes if it wants to be considered a major sport in America. Thankfully for them, I am here to tell them a few things to change to get them moving toward that goal.
First, pick a network (preferably broadcast, not cable) and stick with it. Currently, NASCAR has a television package that uses the FOX network for the first half of the season and then switches to ABC and its affiliated networks for the last half of the season. Unlike pro football where you know that the NFC is always on FOX, you have to grab a schedule and a calendar to see what station to turn your TV to. I know that different conferences of one sport use different networks and no one seems to mind. The difference here is that their is only one race per weekend, not multiple races or games. Just like NBC once was considered the network of pro baseball with its game of the week, NASCAR should try to do the same. By the way, even if NASCAR is intent on dividing the season in half between two networks, fine, just require the main branch to carry all of the races. In the first half of the season (when FOX is in control) the race could be on a FOX channel or FX or TNT or TBS. ABC does the same thing as you may find the race randomly placed on ESPN without any good explanation as to why.
The other big thing that NASCAR needs to do is set a uniform start time for all races. We all know that (barring a Saturday night race under the lights) a race is going to take place on Sunday, unfortunately, we never know when. I challenge you to pick a race, any race, and give me the start time to within fifteen minutes without checking a schedule. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to get back. . . . . . Done? You weren't even close were you? A Sunday race is as apt to start at noon as it is 2:30 or 1:15. Heck, if it is a race on the west coast, it could start in the late afternoon there, which means it is the evening on the east coast. How is anyone supposed to make plans for their Sunday when they never know when the race is going to come on? I'll tell you how they make their plans. Judging by TV ratings last year, they made their plans without watching the race!
NASCAR is trying its level best (at least it says it is, although the above policies make me wonder) to increase its fan base and make its sport more mainstream. That can not, nor will it happen until it addresses these problems with its broadcast. Look, the diehard race fan (Honey), will make sure she takes the time out of her life to find the race and watch it. The casual fan, or someone like me, is not going to look through every channel to find it nor am I going to worry about when it comes on. If it is on when I get back from church, then I will watch some of it. Otherwise, I will do other things with my family and not give it another thought. Continuity is a good thing and NASCAR needs to learn that.
For whatever reason, NASCAR markets itself in a way that can only be viewed as retarded on television, and since the old TV is where most people go for information, entertainment or to simply numb their mind, NASCAR needs to make some changes if it wants to be considered a major sport in America. Thankfully for them, I am here to tell them a few things to change to get them moving toward that goal.
First, pick a network (preferably broadcast, not cable) and stick with it. Currently, NASCAR has a television package that uses the FOX network for the first half of the season and then switches to ABC and its affiliated networks for the last half of the season. Unlike pro football where you know that the NFC is always on FOX, you have to grab a schedule and a calendar to see what station to turn your TV to. I know that different conferences of one sport use different networks and no one seems to mind. The difference here is that their is only one race per weekend, not multiple races or games. Just like NBC once was considered the network of pro baseball with its game of the week, NASCAR should try to do the same. By the way, even if NASCAR is intent on dividing the season in half between two networks, fine, just require the main branch to carry all of the races. In the first half of the season (when FOX is in control) the race could be on a FOX channel or FX or TNT or TBS. ABC does the same thing as you may find the race randomly placed on ESPN without any good explanation as to why.
The other big thing that NASCAR needs to do is set a uniform start time for all races. We all know that (barring a Saturday night race under the lights) a race is going to take place on Sunday, unfortunately, we never know when. I challenge you to pick a race, any race, and give me the start time to within fifteen minutes without checking a schedule. Go ahead, I'll wait for you to get back. . . . . . Done? You weren't even close were you? A Sunday race is as apt to start at noon as it is 2:30 or 1:15. Heck, if it is a race on the west coast, it could start in the late afternoon there, which means it is the evening on the east coast. How is anyone supposed to make plans for their Sunday when they never know when the race is going to come on? I'll tell you how they make their plans. Judging by TV ratings last year, they made their plans without watching the race!
NASCAR is trying its level best (at least it says it is, although the above policies make me wonder) to increase its fan base and make its sport more mainstream. That can not, nor will it happen until it addresses these problems with its broadcast. Look, the diehard race fan (Honey), will make sure she takes the time out of her life to find the race and watch it. The casual fan, or someone like me, is not going to look through every channel to find it nor am I going to worry about when it comes on. If it is on when I get back from church, then I will watch some of it. Otherwise, I will do other things with my family and not give it another thought. Continuity is a good thing and NASCAR needs to learn that.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Deep Thoughts From the Weekend
I did not feel like writing a full blown page on any of these issues, but it seemed a shame not to at least mention them for discussion as I think that each are interesting in their own way.
1) What about the SEC basketball tournament from this weekend? I started watching the thing on Thursday when it began and there were good games both that day and the next. The real crazy stuff happened on Friday night when a tornado hit the Georgia Dome in Atlanta and messed up the scheduling for the tournament, forcing the Georgia Bulldogs to play two games in one day. Georgia won both, as well as the championship the next day, when they were the underdog in every game. Frankly, winning two games in one day against superior teams just boggles my mind and I give all types of credit to Georgia for this feat.
2) The evil empire had its talking heads going full force this weekend as the NCAA tournament pairings were being announced. ESPN must have believed that it did not have enough nonsense being spouted by "said heads" so they brought in Bobby Knight to add even more nonsense, and boy did he deliver. His viewpoint (which he backed off of after one night) was that there should be no automatic qualifiers and the NCAA tourney committee should simply choose the best 64 teams regardless of conference affiliation since most of the champions from the small schools are not as good as the average schools from the BCS conferences. WOW! Sounds like Bobby is still a little bitter about losing to some of those smaller schools back when he used to get teams into the tournament. This is just more of the big conference bullshit that has been put out for years where the big schools argue that if the little schools had to play in their conference, then they would do not better than them; or, if the big school played in that little school's conference, it would have just as good of a record. This is quite some argument when one considers that none of the big schools will play games on the home court of the little schools, nor will they even schedule the better little schools to come to their court if the little schools have a strong team. Just more elitist claptrap from a BCS conference supporter.
3) I am going to do a little bragging now. In my second article on this blog I talked about a change in the hierarchy in NASCAR. Specifically, I argued that we could be looking at an end to the dominance of Hendricks' Motorsports. Well, if you check the standings after yesterday's Bristol race you will not find Jeff Gordon, Jimmy Johnson or Casey Mears in the top twelve drivers qualified for the chase. Not only is Hendricks not the dominant team in NASCAR, it is not even the dominant Chevy team, that honor goes to Richard Childress Racing. Hendricks, it seems, took the offseason off, literally. While its competitors were figuring out how to make their cars better, Hendricks believed that their equipment was so much better that they could celebrate the two championships in a row instead of upgrading and it has now caught up with them. I would say that they are about a couple of months behind and that they will probably make a push with their cars around late June or July, however it may be too late by then to matter.
4) Do you like the drivers in the chase for the cup in NASCAR right now? I hope so, because since the Chase was created a few years ago, 75-80% Of the cars that were in the top 12 (used to be top 10, hence the percentage range) after Bristol made the official chase. When you look at the ones that are in the top 12 right now, the weakest cars would appear to be the #8 position of Ryan Newman and the #12 of Martin Truexx, Jr. That doesn't leave many spots for Jimmy Johnson, Jeff Gordon, Denny Hamlin or Carl Edwards to fight over.
5) I know that people tend to forget the past and glorify the present. It is human nature and it happens in sports all the time. Look at any of those greatest player lists that you see and it is skewed by the living memory of the person putting the list together as he will recall the great all-americans that he has seen and only the greatest of the great from the past will be mentioned. Having said this, I would still have to say that we are seeing the performance of, what I believe history will declare, the best player to ever be, when we see Tiger Woods take a course. Seven titles in a row after this weekend. Tied for third all-time in tourney titles and second for grand slam events. He is truly unreal.
There now. Discuss amongst yourselves.
1) What about the SEC basketball tournament from this weekend? I started watching the thing on Thursday when it began and there were good games both that day and the next. The real crazy stuff happened on Friday night when a tornado hit the Georgia Dome in Atlanta and messed up the scheduling for the tournament, forcing the Georgia Bulldogs to play two games in one day. Georgia won both, as well as the championship the next day, when they were the underdog in every game. Frankly, winning two games in one day against superior teams just boggles my mind and I give all types of credit to Georgia for this feat.
2) The evil empire had its talking heads going full force this weekend as the NCAA tournament pairings were being announced. ESPN must have believed that it did not have enough nonsense being spouted by "said heads" so they brought in Bobby Knight to add even more nonsense, and boy did he deliver. His viewpoint (which he backed off of after one night) was that there should be no automatic qualifiers and the NCAA tourney committee should simply choose the best 64 teams regardless of conference affiliation since most of the champions from the small schools are not as good as the average schools from the BCS conferences. WOW! Sounds like Bobby is still a little bitter about losing to some of those smaller schools back when he used to get teams into the tournament. This is just more of the big conference bullshit that has been put out for years where the big schools argue that if the little schools had to play in their conference, then they would do not better than them; or, if the big school played in that little school's conference, it would have just as good of a record. This is quite some argument when one considers that none of the big schools will play games on the home court of the little schools, nor will they even schedule the better little schools to come to their court if the little schools have a strong team. Just more elitist claptrap from a BCS conference supporter.
3) I am going to do a little bragging now. In my second article on this blog I talked about a change in the hierarchy in NASCAR. Specifically, I argued that we could be looking at an end to the dominance of Hendricks' Motorsports. Well, if you check the standings after yesterday's Bristol race you will not find Jeff Gordon, Jimmy Johnson or Casey Mears in the top twelve drivers qualified for the chase. Not only is Hendricks not the dominant team in NASCAR, it is not even the dominant Chevy team, that honor goes to Richard Childress Racing. Hendricks, it seems, took the offseason off, literally. While its competitors were figuring out how to make their cars better, Hendricks believed that their equipment was so much better that they could celebrate the two championships in a row instead of upgrading and it has now caught up with them. I would say that they are about a couple of months behind and that they will probably make a push with their cars around late June or July, however it may be too late by then to matter.
4) Do you like the drivers in the chase for the cup in NASCAR right now? I hope so, because since the Chase was created a few years ago, 75-80% Of the cars that were in the top 12 (used to be top 10, hence the percentage range) after Bristol made the official chase. When you look at the ones that are in the top 12 right now, the weakest cars would appear to be the #8 position of Ryan Newman and the #12 of Martin Truexx, Jr. That doesn't leave many spots for Jimmy Johnson, Jeff Gordon, Denny Hamlin or Carl Edwards to fight over.
5) I know that people tend to forget the past and glorify the present. It is human nature and it happens in sports all the time. Look at any of those greatest player lists that you see and it is skewed by the living memory of the person putting the list together as he will recall the great all-americans that he has seen and only the greatest of the great from the past will be mentioned. Having said this, I would still have to say that we are seeing the performance of, what I believe history will declare, the best player to ever be, when we see Tiger Woods take a course. Seven titles in a row after this weekend. Tied for third all-time in tourney titles and second for grand slam events. He is truly unreal.
There now. Discuss amongst yourselves.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Coach of the Year
As many of you probably already know, Billy Gillespie of Kentucky and Bruce Pearl of Tennessee were voted as co-coaches of the year in the Southeastern Conference by the coaches themselves. To most of the people in the dixie, this has been met with a chorus of yawns and a startled, "Huh, what, is it football season yet?". However, in the state of Tennessee, the people are going apeshit.
Bloggers, reporters and just general cro-magnons with access to computers are flaming everyone and everything by screaming that Bruce Pearl was absolutely jobbed by having to share the award with Billy Gillespie. Their argument seems to be that his team won the conference, was ranked no. 1 for one week this year and the team is the most successful (so far) that it has ever been (that didn't take much to accomplish either by the way). Furthermore, his not winning the award outright just goes to prove that the other coaches are envious of him and do not like him.
To these people I would say this, "Are you on crack? Is the sky blue in your world or is it some funky shady of neon to you?". Look, I like Coach Pearl. I think that he is fun, energetic and good for college basketball and I hope that he stays at Tennessee for quite a while. But really, c'mon now, this is just a little too much. He had the most talent in the conference coming into the season and he did exactly what everyone expected him to do, win. Tennessee did not win overwhelmingly, but they did win the conference by what, one game? I think that he did a very good job as it is difficult to get a team to win when it should, but that is nothing like what Gillespie had to do. He had the leftovers from a team that hadn't finished with ten conference wins in two years nor had been in the top two of the SEC east in that long as well. In fact, you would have to go back four years to find a Kentucky team that won 12 games in the SEC. He did this with talent that encouraged Tubby Smith to leave for Minnesota and one freshman (albeit a great one) that he persuaded to come to Kentucky over Florida and Duke. What he accomplished in the conference was much more difficult to do that what Pearl did. As for the other coaches not liking Pearl, well, the must like him more than Billy Donovan of Florida as this is Pearl's second top coach award and Billy (he of the last two national championships) has not won it yet.
I, agree that there was a theft in the coach of the year award in the SEC this year. I just disagree with all of the Tennessee fans as I think that the other coach got jobbed.
Bloggers, reporters and just general cro-magnons with access to computers are flaming everyone and everything by screaming that Bruce Pearl was absolutely jobbed by having to share the award with Billy Gillespie. Their argument seems to be that his team won the conference, was ranked no. 1 for one week this year and the team is the most successful (so far) that it has ever been (that didn't take much to accomplish either by the way). Furthermore, his not winning the award outright just goes to prove that the other coaches are envious of him and do not like him.
To these people I would say this, "Are you on crack? Is the sky blue in your world or is it some funky shady of neon to you?". Look, I like Coach Pearl. I think that he is fun, energetic and good for college basketball and I hope that he stays at Tennessee for quite a while. But really, c'mon now, this is just a little too much. He had the most talent in the conference coming into the season and he did exactly what everyone expected him to do, win. Tennessee did not win overwhelmingly, but they did win the conference by what, one game? I think that he did a very good job as it is difficult to get a team to win when it should, but that is nothing like what Gillespie had to do. He had the leftovers from a team that hadn't finished with ten conference wins in two years nor had been in the top two of the SEC east in that long as well. In fact, you would have to go back four years to find a Kentucky team that won 12 games in the SEC. He did this with talent that encouraged Tubby Smith to leave for Minnesota and one freshman (albeit a great one) that he persuaded to come to Kentucky over Florida and Duke. What he accomplished in the conference was much more difficult to do that what Pearl did. As for the other coaches not liking Pearl, well, the must like him more than Billy Donovan of Florida as this is Pearl's second top coach award and Billy (he of the last two national championships) has not won it yet.
I, agree that there was a theft in the coach of the year award in the SEC this year. I just disagree with all of the Tennessee fans as I think that the other coach got jobbed.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Enough with the ESPN lovefest
I don't know about you guys, but I am sick of the lovefest and butt kissing going on in the media, especially the evil empire (aka, ESPN) with Brett Favre. C'mon people get real here. He was a very good quarterback, a great leader, but nowhere near one of the best of all times. Heck he is not even one of the best two in today's game. Don't agree, OK, you can honestly tell me that you would have rather had Favre running your team than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Yeaaaahhhhh Right.
Now don't go thinking that I am hating on Brett. I have enjoyed watching him at Green Bay during his career. But let's be honest, he is nothing more than Dan Fouts or Dan Marino with a Super Bowl ring. Think about it, those guys were gunslingers who carried their teams to AFC Championships by making their offences potent while having woefully bad defenses. Neither of them ever had a Warren Sapp on the other side to lead the "D". Give either of them a top five defense and maybe they have one ring like Favre does. In fact, they could have had more when you consider that Favre is the all time leader in interceptions and an argument could be made that he cost the Packers at least one trip to another Super Bowl with bad interceptions.
Yet, despite all of this ESPN decides to treat us to a lovefest with full coverage of all the tears and everything and then have the nerve to try and say he may be one of the best alltime quarterbacks. ALLTIME? Hello, McFly is anybody home? Favre was a great quarterback; why can't we just let it end at that?
Now don't go thinking that I am hating on Brett. I have enjoyed watching him at Green Bay during his career. But let's be honest, he is nothing more than Dan Fouts or Dan Marino with a Super Bowl ring. Think about it, those guys were gunslingers who carried their teams to AFC Championships by making their offences potent while having woefully bad defenses. Neither of them ever had a Warren Sapp on the other side to lead the "D". Give either of them a top five defense and maybe they have one ring like Favre does. In fact, they could have had more when you consider that Favre is the all time leader in interceptions and an argument could be made that he cost the Packers at least one trip to another Super Bowl with bad interceptions.
Yet, despite all of this ESPN decides to treat us to a lovefest with full coverage of all the tears and everything and then have the nerve to try and say he may be one of the best alltime quarterbacks. ALLTIME? Hello, McFly is anybody home? Favre was a great quarterback; why can't we just let it end at that?
Monday, March 3, 2008
What do Coaches know about rankings?
At a recent press conference, Rick Pitino was asked whether the lack of respect in the Coaches Poll would be used to motivate his team. He replied,
"I don't, because I have no respect for the coaches' poll," he said.
"The bottom line is coaches aren't paying attention," he said. "Nor should they. I'm not blaming the coaches. They give it to an assistant coach, most of them, and the assistant coach is breaking down 100 films and watching recruits."
Pitino said, "It's of no value."
Just glancing at this week's poll makes me wonder if Rick Pitino is right.
Tennessee beats Memphis, in Memphis no less, but loses a close one to a good Vanderbilt team, at Vandy. There is no shame in this split of back-to-back road games against ranked in-state rivals. Yet, Tennessee drops from number 1 to number 4 behind Memphis who stayed at number 3. Interestingly, Tennessee did not garner one first place vote.
Speaking of Vandy, Vandy drops from number 14 to number 16 after beating the Nation's top ranked team at home, and losing a heart-breaker at Arkansas when one of the players called a time-out they did not have.
Speaking of heart-breakers, Marquette was in great position to beat number 10 Georgetown but for a questionable foul called against them against a three point shooter, who then calmly hit three free throws to send the game into OT and eventually a victory for the Hoyas. You may be thinking that since Vandy dropped two spots for a bonehead play at the end of the game so would Marquette. No. Marquette moved up one spot from 21 to 20.
Just think, this is one of the polls used in the BCS formula.
"I don't, because I have no respect for the coaches' poll," he said.
"The bottom line is coaches aren't paying attention," he said. "Nor should they. I'm not blaming the coaches. They give it to an assistant coach, most of them, and the assistant coach is breaking down 100 films and watching recruits."
Pitino said, "It's of no value."
Just glancing at this week's poll makes me wonder if Rick Pitino is right.
Tennessee beats Memphis, in Memphis no less, but loses a close one to a good Vanderbilt team, at Vandy. There is no shame in this split of back-to-back road games against ranked in-state rivals. Yet, Tennessee drops from number 1 to number 4 behind Memphis who stayed at number 3. Interestingly, Tennessee did not garner one first place vote.
Speaking of Vandy, Vandy drops from number 14 to number 16 after beating the Nation's top ranked team at home, and losing a heart-breaker at Arkansas when one of the players called a time-out they did not have.
Speaking of heart-breakers, Marquette was in great position to beat number 10 Georgetown but for a questionable foul called against them against a three point shooter, who then calmly hit three free throws to send the game into OT and eventually a victory for the Hoyas. You may be thinking that since Vandy dropped two spots for a bonehead play at the end of the game so would Marquette. No. Marquette moved up one spot from 21 to 20.
Just think, this is one of the polls used in the BCS formula.
Big W's Quick Hits - NBA
There are two things bothering me about the NBA these days. First, the "Superman Dunk" by Dwight Howard is not worthy of the hype. Is it me, or did he not even make it close to the rim when he threw the ball in? I think there is an argument that it wasn't even a dunk. I mean, I have seen Dr. J leave from just past the free throw line and make it to the rim. I saw Jordan soar to the rim from the free throw line and make it to the rim. So, when this guy puts on some kids' Superman pajamas and can't even make it to the rim, I'm just not that impressed.
Second, have you ever noticed where the NBA allows some people to buy seats at a game? Jack Nicholson notwithstanding, there are usually 6-10 seats on either side of the scorer's table where fans can sit. Then you get to the coaches and the bench. This really bothers me, and wonder how coaches feel about it. They are trying to coach, and end up sitting next to some fan. For example, when Phil Jackson sits on the bench, it is almost as if he does not have enough room to do so from the lack of room thanks to the fans sitting almost right next to him. When they get up to walk down the sideline, they are coaching directly in front fans - literally. I have no problem with floor seats across from the benches, hello Spike Lee, but putting the fans between the teams and the scorer's table just doesn't seem like a great idea.
Second, have you ever noticed where the NBA allows some people to buy seats at a game? Jack Nicholson notwithstanding, there are usually 6-10 seats on either side of the scorer's table where fans can sit. Then you get to the coaches and the bench. This really bothers me, and wonder how coaches feel about it. They are trying to coach, and end up sitting next to some fan. For example, when Phil Jackson sits on the bench, it is almost as if he does not have enough room to do so from the lack of room thanks to the fans sitting almost right next to him. When they get up to walk down the sideline, they are coaching directly in front fans - literally. I have no problem with floor seats across from the benches, hello Spike Lee, but putting the fans between the teams and the scorer's table just doesn't seem like a great idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)