My blog is where I give my two cents, even if the clink of change is heard by few. So here's what I think about the Yahoo! story on potential violations by the University of Connecticut. First, it's a fine job of reporting and the two guys who did it are to be commended for their diligence. I know one of the reporters and I respect both of the guys. Second, you can't blame Yahoo! for pumping up the story to rival that of a mafia indictment. But, three, does anyone really care?
It's no secret among college basketball people that UConn is a dirty program. Give them credit for the fact they haven't faced something worse than this. Unless, you count stealing computers as worse, which you might. But there are just so many ways to get kids to go to school in Storrs. Or Syracuse for that matter, but that's a different story.
My point is the entire NCAA system is a crock. The NCAA and their member schools make billions of dollars off the backs of basketball players that receive very little in recompense. An education? Maybe for those who take advantage of it. But how much money does the school make off those players? There's just no comparison. Can you imagine any other system where you're met with a delay when it comes to bartering your wares? How about Miley Cyrus, for instance, having to sing or perform for basically free until she is 19. That's not America. That's not even Mexico.
That's why I believe the path of people like Brandon Jennings is the future. The kid is getting paid and realistically has made enough money for his lifetime in one year. He's struggled in Europe and yet he's still going to be a first-round pick. And to think that if he had passed his SAT (or whatever test he took), he might be playing this weekend for Arizona for free.
The biggest joke is that for all of Yahoo's great reporting, the end result is that it is defending a system that takes advantage of kids. But no one will say what the biggest problem here is. It's the NCAA.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
Wow
Yes, Mike Bresnahan, I was expecting the Lakes to go 0-3 on this trip. Sorta. I certainly didn’t see them pulling off the Texas Two-step.
But something happened at halftime of the Rockets game. The Lakers really didn’t play that badly in the first half. But they were a different team in the second. I can’t remember the last time I saw them rotate so well to shooters and lock up the opposition. Maybe the game in Cleveland, but the Cavs couldn’t hit anything in that game.
The Rockets were similarly icy on Wednesday night, going 5-28 from three. That’s 18 percent, y’all. And get this, they shot 51 percent for the game! Attention, Aaron Brooks. Throw the ball to the huge Chinese guy. How can Yao miss only two shots and not get more than nine attempts.
The Lakes did have a few breakdowns. I think Fish dropped to double Yao and left Brooks wide open for a three late in the game. But they got big contributions from Josh Powell, Trevor Ariza and Luke Walton. Oh, and Ron “You’re not ready for me, Kobe” Artest.
That was just plain weird and its shows you just how insane Ron-Ron is. The whole time I was thinking, ‘Wait, aren’t these guys friends?’ Not that you can’t get in a squab with even your best mate from time to time. But for it to go on and on, even after Mamba was crushing him. Wacky.
If Wednesday was a surprise, last night was a shocker. As Big Game James said at halftime, if the Lakers play D like this, they’ll be champions. I couldn’t agree more. And you know all it takes is a little more effort. I know the season is long and the Lakes aren’t the most athletic team (neither is Houston or SA, but then neither in Portland), but just getting a hand in guys’ faces or chasing guys off the three helps. That was big since the Spurs scored 33 points from long range and not all were wide-open treys.
Again, there were some late game goofs. After they regained a seven-point lead I engaged the TV in the following conversation:
“Why is he (LO) handling the ball? Why is he (Luke) shooting?”
Then Kobe hit that monster three and Lamar made a great pass to Pau and all was forgiven. They didn’t panic like the Laker teams of a few years ago and they overcame some adversity (aka the atrocious no-call on Tony Parker pushing Farmar out of bounds at the end of the third that cost LA at least three points).
So wow. I can’t believe that’s my team.
But something happened at halftime of the Rockets game. The Lakers really didn’t play that badly in the first half. But they were a different team in the second. I can’t remember the last time I saw them rotate so well to shooters and lock up the opposition. Maybe the game in Cleveland, but the Cavs couldn’t hit anything in that game.
The Rockets were similarly icy on Wednesday night, going 5-28 from three. That’s 18 percent, y’all. And get this, they shot 51 percent for the game! Attention, Aaron Brooks. Throw the ball to the huge Chinese guy. How can Yao miss only two shots and not get more than nine attempts.
The Lakes did have a few breakdowns. I think Fish dropped to double Yao and left Brooks wide open for a three late in the game. But they got big contributions from Josh Powell, Trevor Ariza and Luke Walton. Oh, and Ron “You’re not ready for me, Kobe” Artest.
That was just plain weird and its shows you just how insane Ron-Ron is. The whole time I was thinking, ‘Wait, aren’t these guys friends?’ Not that you can’t get in a squab with even your best mate from time to time. But for it to go on and on, even after Mamba was crushing him. Wacky.
If Wednesday was a surprise, last night was a shocker. As Big Game James said at halftime, if the Lakers play D like this, they’ll be champions. I couldn’t agree more. And you know all it takes is a little more effort. I know the season is long and the Lakes aren’t the most athletic team (neither is Houston or SA, but then neither in Portland), but just getting a hand in guys’ faces or chasing guys off the three helps. That was big since the Spurs scored 33 points from long range and not all were wide-open treys.
Again, there were some late game goofs. After they regained a seven-point lead I engaged the TV in the following conversation:
“Why is he (LO) handling the ball? Why is he (Luke) shooting?”
Then Kobe hit that monster three and Lamar made a great pass to Pau and all was forgiven. They didn’t panic like the Laker teams of a few years ago and they overcame some adversity (aka the atrocious no-call on Tony Parker pushing Farmar out of bounds at the end of the third that cost LA at least three points).
So wow. I can’t believe that’s my team.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Blazed
Well so much for being resuming the role of road warriors. To be honest, I didn't see much of last night's game with Portland since I was making my famous fried chicken. What I did watch of the first half, viewed in the reflection of our kitchen sink window was a lot of Brandon Roy abusing Luke Walton in the half court. I know Luke isn't the best defender to say the least but please, can't PJ show a little more respect for Portland's all-star than that.
This was easily the worst L of the year, but maybe (if the Mighty Stern doesn't suspend Trevor and LO), the Lakes can take something out of this game. As I said following the Phoenix loss, LA has played way too many close games against lesser opponents. Tonight, they were plain punked by a team that has been struggling (mostly on the road) recently. Maybe it serves as a wake-up call that the Lakes can't coast into the third quarter before turning on the offense. Maybe they can learn to play some straight up D before the fourth Q. As it turned out, they finally did show up in the 4th and didn't quit, even when they were down by 28. They showed some pride which is as good a sign as you can hope for heading into Houston and SA.
Any fool who watched the Ariza-Fernandez play can tell you TA doesn't deserve a suspension. He was clearly going for the ball. Yeah, it was a hard foul but you can't start giving out suspensions just because the end result is someone getting hurt. The league didn't suspend Bynum after Gerald Wallace's lung collapsed. They shouldn't suspend Ariza for this. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they suspended both Ariza and LO. LO was not on the floor, but he did join the fray and I can't imagine suspending him and not Ariza. If Kobe can be suspended for hitting Ginobli in the nose a couple of years ago this seems a no brainer for the halfwits (Stu Jackson) in the league office who make these calls. I hope I'm wrong.
This was easily the worst L of the year, but maybe (if the Mighty Stern doesn't suspend Trevor and LO), the Lakes can take something out of this game. As I said following the Phoenix loss, LA has played way too many close games against lesser opponents. Tonight, they were plain punked by a team that has been struggling (mostly on the road) recently. Maybe it serves as a wake-up call that the Lakes can't coast into the third quarter before turning on the offense. Maybe they can learn to play some straight up D before the fourth Q. As it turned out, they finally did show up in the 4th and didn't quit, even when they were down by 28. They showed some pride which is as good a sign as you can hope for heading into Houston and SA.
Any fool who watched the Ariza-Fernandez play can tell you TA doesn't deserve a suspension. He was clearly going for the ball. Yeah, it was a hard foul but you can't start giving out suspensions just because the end result is someone getting hurt. The league didn't suspend Bynum after Gerald Wallace's lung collapsed. They shouldn't suspend Ariza for this. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if they suspended both Ariza and LO. LO was not on the floor, but he did join the fray and I can't imagine suspending him and not Ariza. If Kobe can be suspended for hitting Ginobli in the nose a couple of years ago this seems a no brainer for the halfwits (Stu Jackson) in the league office who make these calls. I hope I'm wrong.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The Rookie Age Limit
O.J. Mayo returned to LA last night with the Griz and while Kobe torched him in the first quarter, he still managed to finish with 17 points including three treys. As USC fans know, Mayo has the ability to be a game changer. Last year, the Trojans offense ran through him whether he was at the point or not. And though he can certainly handle the ball, his future is as a big-time scorer. He currently averages 19.2 points per game and has been around the 20-point mark all season. The last NBA rookies to average at least 20 per are Kevin Durant, Lebron James, Elton Brand, Tim Duncan, Allen Iverson, and Shaquille O’Neal.
That’s heavy company and yet Mayo is not a lock for ROY. Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose and Brook Lopez are all viable candidates with some people giving Westbrook the nod off his fabulous February. The 2008 draft was not thought to be a strong one (2009 almost undoubtedly will be weaker still), but there’s something to be said for the depth of last year’s class. In addition to the four named above, players like Kevin Love, Eric Gordon, Rudy Fernandez, Marreese Speights and Michael Beasley all have made significant contributions. And of the ten top rookies (you can throw in Greg Oden for ten), eight of them played one year or less of college ball.
It’s interesting because if you believe the tea leaves being deciphered by the likes David Falk and Bill Simmons, the NBA is in such bad shape financially that the players are a virtual lock to be locked out come 2011 when the current CBA ends. And both Falk and Simmons say that whenever the new CBA is ratified (Simmons doesn’t put a possible year or two-year shutdown past the owners), a 20-year-old age limit for rookies will be imposed. In the recent NY Times piece, Falk suggested the age limit be raised to 20 or 21 because current rookies lack fan familiarity and have eroded play.
Taking into account the economic climate, it’s clear the players are in line to make big concessions and I doubt whether they really care about the union members who are not members yet. Afterall, rookies have to take someone’s job. But I just don’t see how this makes sense for the owners. Today’s rook, as opposed to the days of Larry Johnson, is relatively cheap. Even if Greg Oden never lives up to being the number one pick, the Blazers could cut ties with him in two more years at a cost of a little over 10 million. That’s less that Joel Pryzbilla (13.1 million) is set to make.
Second, in today’s media saturated sports landscape, Falk’s notion of fan familiarity couldn’t be more antiquated. I don’t know how much more familiar people could have been with Durant who so dominated college basketball that he was POY as a frosh. What would it mean if he had to return for his sophomore season? If the next Durant or Kobe or Lebron came from a low-income background, why wouldn’t he just pull up sticks and go to Europe like Brandon Jennings. Biding your time with a year of college is one thing, but two years means you’re leaving a lot of money on the table. Right now European clubs appear willing to soften the blow. Jennings is making over 3.5 million from his contract and an Under Armour endorsement. And he’s not becoming any more fan familiar playing for Lottomatica Roma.
As for eroding play, just look around the league. If you use the All-star game rosters as a barometer, only six players (Granger, Nelson, Pierce, Duncan, West, and Roy) went to school for more than two years while ten All-stars did not play any college ball (LBJ, Kobe, Garnett, Lewis, Howard, Amare, Yao, Dirk, Gasol, Parker). Add in Bosh and it’s eleven who played one year or less. Two of the L’s three best players, Kobe and Lebron, are straight out of high school, and the third, Dwyane Wade really only played two years at Marquette since he sat out his freshman year because of academics.
It’s only a matter of time before players like Mayo, Rose and Durant become all-stars themselves (If you ask me Durant should have made this year’s team over David West). So while the owners may get just about everything they ask for in the next CBA, changing the age limit would be a mistake. The NBA, not the NCAA or Europe, showcases the best players in world. Keeping it that way should be a priority.
That’s heavy company and yet Mayo is not a lock for ROY. Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose and Brook Lopez are all viable candidates with some people giving Westbrook the nod off his fabulous February. The 2008 draft was not thought to be a strong one (2009 almost undoubtedly will be weaker still), but there’s something to be said for the depth of last year’s class. In addition to the four named above, players like Kevin Love, Eric Gordon, Rudy Fernandez, Marreese Speights and Michael Beasley all have made significant contributions. And of the ten top rookies (you can throw in Greg Oden for ten), eight of them played one year or less of college ball.
It’s interesting because if you believe the tea leaves being deciphered by the likes David Falk and Bill Simmons, the NBA is in such bad shape financially that the players are a virtual lock to be locked out come 2011 when the current CBA ends. And both Falk and Simmons say that whenever the new CBA is ratified (Simmons doesn’t put a possible year or two-year shutdown past the owners), a 20-year-old age limit for rookies will be imposed. In the recent NY Times piece, Falk suggested the age limit be raised to 20 or 21 because current rookies lack fan familiarity and have eroded play.
Taking into account the economic climate, it’s clear the players are in line to make big concessions and I doubt whether they really care about the union members who are not members yet. Afterall, rookies have to take someone’s job. But I just don’t see how this makes sense for the owners. Today’s rook, as opposed to the days of Larry Johnson, is relatively cheap. Even if Greg Oden never lives up to being the number one pick, the Blazers could cut ties with him in two more years at a cost of a little over 10 million. That’s less that Joel Pryzbilla (13.1 million) is set to make.
Second, in today’s media saturated sports landscape, Falk’s notion of fan familiarity couldn’t be more antiquated. I don’t know how much more familiar people could have been with Durant who so dominated college basketball that he was POY as a frosh. What would it mean if he had to return for his sophomore season? If the next Durant or Kobe or Lebron came from a low-income background, why wouldn’t he just pull up sticks and go to Europe like Brandon Jennings. Biding your time with a year of college is one thing, but two years means you’re leaving a lot of money on the table. Right now European clubs appear willing to soften the blow. Jennings is making over 3.5 million from his contract and an Under Armour endorsement. And he’s not becoming any more fan familiar playing for Lottomatica Roma.
As for eroding play, just look around the league. If you use the All-star game rosters as a barometer, only six players (Granger, Nelson, Pierce, Duncan, West, and Roy) went to school for more than two years while ten All-stars did not play any college ball (LBJ, Kobe, Garnett, Lewis, Howard, Amare, Yao, Dirk, Gasol, Parker). Add in Bosh and it’s eleven who played one year or less. Two of the L’s three best players, Kobe and Lebron, are straight out of high school, and the third, Dwyane Wade really only played two years at Marquette since he sat out his freshman year because of academics.
It’s only a matter of time before players like Mayo, Rose and Durant become all-stars themselves (If you ask me Durant should have made this year’s team over David West). So while the owners may get just about everything they ask for in the next CBA, changing the age limit would be a mistake. The NBA, not the NCAA or Europe, showcases the best players in world. Keeping it that way should be a priority.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Degree of Difficulty
Toward the end of last season, after the Lakers acquired Gasol, and into the playoffs, I used to play this game in my head. The Lakes had some unbelievable record when they scored 100 points first and when games got into the third Q I'd calculate what they needed to score to win. "Okay, just twenty more points," I'd think to myself. Or "If they put up another fifteen, there's no way they're losing this one." For the most part, it worked. But then they got to the Finals and everybody thought they'd blow by the slower Celts who had to play two seven-game series just to reach the conference finals. I wasn't so sure because deep down I knew the Lakers would eventually have to play some defense and as everyone always says you can't just turn it on. True, they were without Bynum, who even if he's not scoring is a deterrent down low, and Ariza was just coming back off his injury. But the playoffs are about dictating tempo and against good teams you can't always expect to outscore everyone.
Fast forward to this year's Lakers team and you see a lot of similarities. Phil Jackson has tried to make this a better defensive team but when things didn't work early on he was the first to say, "I guess we're just a good offensive team." At times, LA can be a great offensive team. Just look at how many double-digit leads they've raced to only to let teams get back into (and occasionally win) the game. Some may say it's the nature of the NBA and to an extent it is. But people who watch the Lakers know they're not a good defensive team. That's not to say they can't play decent D. They've done it in the past. They held Cleveland to 30-some points in the second half there after surrendering 60 in the first. But basically their MO is to outscore opponents.
I know. I know. It's hard to quibble with a 48-12 record including four wins over the Eastern’s best. But if you look back at the games individually, you'll see that the Lakers don't blow too many teams out. The good thing is they themselves are rarely blown out. I'd say the Sacramento loss early on (113-101) and Friday night's loss in Denver are probably their worse defeats of the season. Which means two things. One, they're in every game with a chance to win. Two, so are their opponents. And while a mark of good team is to win the close ones, three-point Ws over Miami and Indiana and a two-point win over New York (all at home) are a scary sight to behold, let alone witness in real time.
You don't have to watch the Lakers much to know that they give up a lot of open threes. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding why they double so much and it doesn't help that more times than one would hope, someone like LO or Sasha ends up doubling way out on the floor, leaving somebody, usually a good shooter with an open look. It doesn't surprise me that the Magic beat them twice. Orlando lives by the three and even though the Lakers know that they gave them look after open look. Obviously, part of the problem is slow rotations. With the exception of Ariza, the Lakers have to be one of the worst show and recover teams in the L.
But a bigger problem in my view is the degree of difficulty with which LA plays. Case in point is today's loss to the Suns. The Suns 56 percent shooting included at least four uncontested layups/dunks and two makes off missed free throws. If you look at the shot chart, Phoenix had 30 points off layups/dunks. THAT'S A QUARTER WORTH OF POINTS. It helped that the Suns missed 16 free throws, otherwise the game wouldn't have been close. But at some point, you just can't give up so many easy baskets and expect to win (it's great to have Fish and Farmar penetrate, but there's no responsibility when they turn the ball over). And yet, game after game the Lakers will come down on O, move the ball for Gasol to score or have Kobe make some ridiculous shot only to give up a layup on the other end. It’s like they’re trying to invent new ways to win without playing D every single night.
What's more is the Lakers routinely start slow, get behind, ratchet up the D somewhat or ride Kobe back into the game. How many games recently have they given up 60 points in the first half? Now, it's a long season and I'm as confident in PJ's ability to get guys rested and sharp for the playoffs. And I know this is a much better defensive team with Andrew in the middle. But just once I'd like to see the Lakers come out and play aggressive D from the start of the game. If you look back to the first two games of the season, that's exactly what they did. But ever since then they've been playing to the level of their opponent. How else do you explain wins over Cleveland and Boston and Ls to Sacto, Indiana, Charlotte and the depleted Suns?
Fast forward to this year's Lakers team and you see a lot of similarities. Phil Jackson has tried to make this a better defensive team but when things didn't work early on he was the first to say, "I guess we're just a good offensive team." At times, LA can be a great offensive team. Just look at how many double-digit leads they've raced to only to let teams get back into (and occasionally win) the game. Some may say it's the nature of the NBA and to an extent it is. But people who watch the Lakers know they're not a good defensive team. That's not to say they can't play decent D. They've done it in the past. They held Cleveland to 30-some points in the second half there after surrendering 60 in the first. But basically their MO is to outscore opponents.
I know. I know. It's hard to quibble with a 48-12 record including four wins over the Eastern’s best. But if you look back at the games individually, you'll see that the Lakers don't blow too many teams out. The good thing is they themselves are rarely blown out. I'd say the Sacramento loss early on (113-101) and Friday night's loss in Denver are probably their worse defeats of the season. Which means two things. One, they're in every game with a chance to win. Two, so are their opponents. And while a mark of good team is to win the close ones, three-point Ws over Miami and Indiana and a two-point win over New York (all at home) are a scary sight to behold, let alone witness in real time.
You don't have to watch the Lakers much to know that they give up a lot of open threes. Sometimes I have a hard time understanding why they double so much and it doesn't help that more times than one would hope, someone like LO or Sasha ends up doubling way out on the floor, leaving somebody, usually a good shooter with an open look. It doesn't surprise me that the Magic beat them twice. Orlando lives by the three and even though the Lakers know that they gave them look after open look. Obviously, part of the problem is slow rotations. With the exception of Ariza, the Lakers have to be one of the worst show and recover teams in the L.
But a bigger problem in my view is the degree of difficulty with which LA plays. Case in point is today's loss to the Suns. The Suns 56 percent shooting included at least four uncontested layups/dunks and two makes off missed free throws. If you look at the shot chart, Phoenix had 30 points off layups/dunks. THAT'S A QUARTER WORTH OF POINTS. It helped that the Suns missed 16 free throws, otherwise the game wouldn't have been close. But at some point, you just can't give up so many easy baskets and expect to win (it's great to have Fish and Farmar penetrate, but there's no responsibility when they turn the ball over). And yet, game after game the Lakers will come down on O, move the ball for Gasol to score or have Kobe make some ridiculous shot only to give up a layup on the other end. It’s like they’re trying to invent new ways to win without playing D every single night.
What's more is the Lakers routinely start slow, get behind, ratchet up the D somewhat or ride Kobe back into the game. How many games recently have they given up 60 points in the first half? Now, it's a long season and I'm as confident in PJ's ability to get guys rested and sharp for the playoffs. And I know this is a much better defensive team with Andrew in the middle. But just once I'd like to see the Lakers come out and play aggressive D from the start of the game. If you look back to the first two games of the season, that's exactly what they did. But ever since then they've been playing to the level of their opponent. How else do you explain wins over Cleveland and Boston and Ls to Sacto, Indiana, Charlotte and the depleted Suns?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
