Andy Katz pulls a Jay Bilas
I was just reading ESPN's "Bracket Impressions" pieces, and couldn't help but laugh at how little these guys actually know about basketball programs outside of about the top ten schools (Duke/Kentucky/UConn/OSU/etc).
My favorite was Andy Katz's use of the go-to line about Michigan/Beilein coached teams: "But Tennessee could also lose badly to Michigan and the Wolverines' 1-3-1 defense." If Katz knew anything about this year's Michigan team, he would know that we've played almost no 1-3-1. From what I've seen, we've played mainly man-to-man this year, with a little match-up zone mixed in. You could write in almost any other basketball platitude and be close, but use of the 1-3-1 line automatically tells me that the writer/announcer has done no prep work outside of watching Beilein's WVU Elite 8 team a few years back. He's like Jay Bilas - spout off a few player names or playing styles associated with a program and then pretend like you're an expert.
In sum, national sports coverage is just laughable when it comes to quality analysis. That is why MGoBlog, UMHoops, and the like will always be superior.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:02 PM ^
What's new?
March 14th, 2011 at 12:06 PM ^
You'll have to excuse these national pundits. In case you haven't heard, U-M's back in the tournament this year after an extended absence.
/s
March 14th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
Of one year?
And it's all thanks to head coach Jim Beilein.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^
Last weekend I heard Lunardi interview on a late night espn radio show where he stated he thought Michigans win over MSU would help them end a long drought from the NCAA tournament.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
Eh, this happens all the time. Watched ESPN last night and they're still in love with Syracuse's 2-3 defense even though they're not nearly as good as they were last year.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
At least they are still running the 2-3 zone...
March 14th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
It's ESPN. No brains, all flash.
ESPN: No analysis, all hyperbole?
March 14th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
This is actually really common. I've heard a ton of analysts refer to Michigan as a tough match up because of that 1-3-1 defense. It's pretty obvious they don't watch anyone play because as you said, Michigan has run the 1-3-1 for a total of 5 minutes this season. Now if only Bruce Pearl were similarly confused, we'd be in business.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
March 14th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
It can be hard to analize an entire lineup.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:36 PM ^
I actually commented on the ESPN article, as fruitless as that is.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
is a goddamn American hero for that rant he went on yesterday.
No one on ESPN has ever been more correct about anything ever.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^
was the rant about?
March 14th, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
was a travesty of justice.
It was epic.
"I honestly wonder if the members of the committee know that the ball is round." "We talk a lot about the eye test. This bracket doesn't pass the laugh test." "I'm not saying I don't care about how the players feel, but I don't care how the players feel." "You know who was really surprised that UAB and VCU got in? UAB and VCU."
March 14th, 2011 at 12:48 PM ^
I wouldn't be surprised at all to see us actually break out the 1-3-1 against Tennessee in the Tourney.
They're a horrific 3 point shooting team but probably have advantages in a lot of 1 on 1 matchups.
Agreed, I can see us busting out the 1-3-1 as well, we didn''t use it all year so Tenn might not prepare for it, could be a nice wrinkle to throw at them. Anything that could give us an advantage i'm down with.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
Look at the second comment on the article, I was up late, saw that, and had to say something.
March 14th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
Hopefully Katz is feeding Pearl the breakdown on UM. In fact, I hope that Tennessee is devoting as much time as possible to breaking down the 1-3-1! That Merritt kid up top is a demon...
March 14th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^
i also think we may see the 1-3-1, at least for a bit of time (however, this generally means playing horford which we have not done as of late) ... remember, it was the 1-3-1 that allowed us to get back into the game late against Kansas
however, the OP's point stands, espn knows nothing baout umich basketball ... i (gulp) prefer even the btn's coverage
ESPN is a national organization with 350 (or however many) Division I basketball schools to cover in varying levels of depth. I'm not offended that a national analyst doesn't know that Beilein - who has historically run quite a bit of 1-3-1 - changed his approach this year. I wouldn't expect the governor of Michigan to know all the political ins and outs of Washtenaw County, either.
MGoBlog and UMHoops are great because they cover one school and then concentrate on whoever the opponent is that night or that week. I'm sure there are other schools out there with excellent blogs that go in-depth, but ESPN's job is to collect some of that data and try to make it workable for the entirety of Division I. It's practically an impossible job.
I don't watch ESPN shows for their in-depth analysis on every school. I go there to find out the headlines and get an overall sense of what's going on in the sports world. Bloggers and beat writers are going to be infinitely more in touch than national analysts.
350 schools may play D1 ball, but only 64 are in the tournament, many of whom you know are going to be in way beforehand. Couldn't help to do some homework for a week or two, especially since that's your job and all.
nah that would require effort.
See how easy it is? Your research staff obviously failed you - there are 68 teams in the tournament.
STRING HIM UP!
there are 4 "play-in" games. so i guess it's a technicality on whether the 4 losers of those games are actually in the tourny.
Actually they are not play-in games. They are considered the first round by the NCAA.
No, those teams are in the tournament. If they win each game from here on out, they will make their way through the tournament bracket and win the national title.
Not that I expect them to win those games, but they are officially considered to be in the tournament. That's why there was that big ordeal about expanding the tournament from 64 to 65 and then 68 teams. Maybe you heard about that somewhere.
You nail it, Magnus. It sure beats watching the MS for all the bad things they say and putting it up on a message board for more inane comments about how national guys don't know what they're doing over and over again.
If Michigan makes it past the first round, then we'll get some deeper coverage and guys will know more.
that exists in support of their talking heads maintaining some attachment to reality. unless "staff" means "one guy with a VCR and some orange Faygo" these are things they can figure out if they choose to.
Yes. I'm not saying the mistake should be the norm. I'm saying that it happens and it doesn't signify some overarching evil or incompetence. I don't expect every word that comes out of a talking head's mouth to have been filtered through a research staff, and I don't expect a research staff to mine every iota of data available.
It's just not a big deal that Andy Katz was quoted as saying Michigan plays a different defense than it does. A defensive system in basketball is much less important than in football, because every team has multiple fronts/coverages/defenses, but defenses break down in basketball much more often. For example, a 4-3 defense in football is going to be a 4-3 defense on almost every down. But if Team A gets a fast break or a 2-on-2 against virtually any team, the 1-3-1 or the matchup zone or whatever completely goes out the window.
the point is if the dude with the Red Pop had been told to put on the right tape, they wouldn't be yammering on incorrectly. it's not asking a lot to do the research given that they're purportedly experts.
March 14th, 2011 at 10:39 PM ^
And yet this isn't material enough to be like "lol Andy Katz doesn't know what the f*** he's talking about," which is the tenor of some posts on this board whenever someone in the MSM says something incorrect about Michigan.
There's nothing insidious or evil by him saying that. It's an honest mistake. Who really cares?
If that one person was drinking "Red Pop" one guy could handle it all very easily.
Katz will only "pull a Jay Bilas" when he relentlessly flogs the idea that Tommy Amaker is a fabulous coach who should still be at Michigan.
Bilas was making a case for Harvard to make the tourny tho.
Why did he love Amaker so much?
They were teammates (classmates?) at Duke.
Ugh, people are fucking retarded and I hate them. The sad part is, for every 1 person that knows he's stupid and knows nothing, there are 10 that believes he's all-knowing. I remember I heard someone say that Michigan was 'using the student-athletes wrong' during the practicegate situation, never could actually tell me what was happening though.
...and yet that person's statement - no matter how oddly stated or uninformed - was essentially correct. Michigan was indeed using its student-athletes incorrectly by making them practice (or stretch) too long. The NCAA, after a thorough investigation, said so.
So in other words, the person read the headlines and got a basic understanding of what was going on. That's mass media's job. Joe Schmoe doesn't give a rat's ass that on August 17, 2008, from 11:08 a.m. until 11:20 a.m., players were stretching when they weren't supposed to.
and i think something bad happened in japan this past week.
Earlier this year (I don't remember which game), Michigan went to a zone, and a the BTN commentators said that "Michigan has switched to Beilein's favorite, the 1-3-1 zone."
They were running a freeking 2-3 zone at the time.
Not sure why Bilas's name is getting dragged through the mud. Ok he's a big fan of Amaker but he also consistently speaks intelligently about the game and was absolutely on fire last night. He came out hammering on the selection committee.
Bilas: Dropping knowledge
Hubert: durrrrr EYE TEST
Digger: Colorado beat KSU THREE TIMES!!!!
Rece Davis: Hey guys look at this math
Bilas: More knowledge
I'm not going to knock Bilas here - he may have favorites, but he does seem to follow the game and knows what is going on nationally pretty well for an announcer. ESPN doesn't have the best college BBall analysts but they are a national outfit and that means they are going to focus on a couple of big-names at the expense of knowing everything about others. I know very little about Tennessee's offensive and defensive systems beyond what I picked up in a quick search of Volunteer sites, and I can't imagine that an analyst would even have enough time to learn about half the teams in the tourney. The 1-3-1 thing is always annoying, but it is a Beilein trademark and I'm sure that it technically his favorite defense but is really only an option with older, established players who get how to run it effectively. I'm sure as this team matures and better players join the system, we'll see it employed more.
i actually think bilas is one of the best in the business. but i totally disagree with your point about an analyst not having enough time to learn about the teams.
hell, if your smart about it, you only need to learn about 80 teams; those with a chance to make the tourny. you have 5-6 months to catch a game from these teams; or at least part of a game. i mean, it's supposed to be your full-time job. if some po dunk team is on the bubble, take 20 min and learn a little something about them. it's inexcusable not to know about these teams.
I think that the 1-3-1 quotes show a lack of knowledge that is inexcusable, but some people have been complaining that the analysts don't know enough about player X or team Y, and that always strikes me as irrelevant. I'm sure they know a bit about each team, and that is usually enough for a quick soundbite. But I don't expect them to know about player X or scheme Y for most teams unless they are going to announce the game and/or pontificate about said team for more than 20 seconds.
did Bobby Knight say VCU's ticket was a "chicken shit" invite?