i would find this more credible if it was about Tom Crean
- Member for
- 6 years 39 weeks
- View recent blog entries
|17 hours 54 min ago||"I couldn't get in at State."||
"I couldn't get in at State."
|1 day 19 hours ago||Whoa whoa whoa. It's just an||
Whoa whoa whoa. It's just an 11-year-old's birthday party. No need to get crazy.
|4 days 19 hours ago||I can think of one pitch that||
I can think of one pitch that beats Arizona stone cold: W-A-T-E-R. You have none of it.
Arizona is not that goddamn great. Not everyone thinks it's the shit to be surrounded by sand and 105 degree heat. "Location to an ocean"? What, five hours away? I can be at a saltwater ocean in eight, that's not that big a difference.
You might need to recognize the bias you have instead of assuming that the only unbiased opinion is for everyone to move where you are. If you told me I had to move and could never go back to my home state again - to remove all the bias from the equation, see - you couldn't drag me kicking and screaming to Arizona.
|1 week 5 days ago||Looking age-appropriate is||
Looking age-appropriate is for work. I have to look age-appropriate 50 hours a week plus whatever other obligations I might have. Football games are quite possibly the most informal event you can attend. Why should I wear the same business-casual stuff I wear to the office?
Besides, a polo shirt at a Lions or Wings or Pistons game would probably make you look like the world's biggest stick was jammed up your ass, because nobody else is wearing them.
|1 week 6 days ago||Lemme get this straight. We||
Lemme get this straight. We pay rather large amounts of money to go watch representatives of one rich man's company play a game against representatives of another rich man's company and hope the ones in the right colors score more points. We've never met these people, but that doesn't matter. Many people also pay money not to learn about the decisions of a 16-year-old boy, but the feelings of a 16-year-old boy before he makes the decision.
All this is rational, but we draw the line at wearing the wrong kind of shirt? How irrationally picky is that?
|1 week 6 days ago||I didn't say that access to||
I didn't say that access to facilities was compensation, I said it was a cost to the school. Please read for comprehension.
Besides, as a matter of fact, access to nice facilities is certainly considered compensation of sorts when Google does it. Not taxable compensation, but it's certainly an attraction to working at the company vs. working somewhere else. It's a cost the company takes on because they think it helps them attract more talent, which is not at all unlike a university building those gold-plated locker rooms for athletes.
And limiting your argument to marginal cost of education vs. tuition is absolutely ignorant. Name a single company that ever charges nothing but the marginal cost of production for its product. Show me such a company and I'll show you a dead company. You've heard of fixed costs and capital investment, have you not? Companies - and universities - have to cover them. What you call gold-plating, I call fixed costs and capital investments, and we can argue til we're blue in the face about whether they're necessary, but they exist. Of course the marginal cost of educating one more student is less than tuition - but the actual cost of educating a student is certainly much more, else universities wouldn't rely on donations and public subsidies. As an illustration, if a prof teaches 200 students a year and makes $200,000, then the fixed cost per student is $1,000, a cost which you fail to include in your argument.
|1 week 6 days ago||"Less bloat" is not the||
"Less bloat" is not the reason those institutions can field Olympic sports teams. Massive subsidization tends to be the reason, or else the athlete pays their own way.
"Most revenue sport athletes" still covers a very small sliver of collegiate athletes. Revenue sports are football and men's basketball - the rest at best break even, and only when talking about big-time deals like lacrosse at Syracuse or hockey at Michigan. And even then, most revenue sport athletes really wouldn't do any better. Backups are pretty damn interchangeable.
Also, the actual cost to the institution of enrolling an athlete - any athlete - is MORE than the sticker price of tuition. Universities are nonprofits; tuition is basically the university's cost of operation, minus donations and state subsidies, amortized across the student body. Athletes require special facilities and services, all paid for by the athletic department. Even an athlete who pays their own way 100% gets more out of it than the average student, because of the extra access to facilities and services.
|1 week 6 days ago||True, there are Olympic-sport||
True, there are Olympic-sport athletes who could make some money getting endorsements. Thing of it is, most of them do, because they leave. That might be 1 in every 1,000 Olympic sport participants if we're being really generous. It's probably more like 1 in 10,000.
The system as it is now "screws" about 2% of its athletes, who could do better on the free market, in exchange for giving the other 98% an opportunity they wouldn't have. The more free-market college sports become, the more money will flow from the 98% to the 2%. Since this is a zero-sum game, that's a problem. I'm OK with the "victimization" of those poor exploited 2%, who have to delay (not sacrifice) their payoff, a situation, I might add, which they chose freely.
|1 week 6 days ago||Agreed. Unlimited ability to||
Agreed. Unlimited ability to transfer and play immediately would (as Space Coyote said above) mainly result in every star player at smaller schools transferring to bigger schools. Then those bigger schools would push someone out to make room. Can't see how this is a good thing. That kind of unlimited freedom is something not even the pros enjoy.
|1 week 6 days ago||Should that apply to only||
Should that apply to only football players, or to, like, wrestlers and swimmers too?
|2 weeks 14 hours ago||If this year's NIT doesn't||
But, a great deal of the push for a 30-second shot clock is coming from people like Seth Davis who want it for the most utterly un-thought-out reasons. We're talking about folks who think two extra possessions per game makes all the difference in the world, because they haven't really considered that it's only two possessions per game. Do we really expect them to care about or even notice efficiency?
|2 weeks 1 day ago||No other game does that,||
No other game does that, because no other game has such a small risk/reward ratio for committing penalties.
If you want to see games broken up into totally unwatchable little 45-second segments with 80-100 stoppages along the way, I can't think of a better way than to get rid of fouling out. Why should I even remotely think of letting a guy have a layup if I can hack him without penalty and take my chances at the free-throw line? Why should I do anything other than hack-a-Shaq if I can do it with impunity?
KenPom did a study on a short period of time when two conferences experimented with six fouls as the limit instead of five. Even though the number of fouls per game nationwide dropped year over year, fouls in the two conferences went up. About two extra fouls per game. When they dropped the experiment, they immediately dropped to nationwide averages. Raising the foul limit is a horrible idea; removing it is unspeakably bad.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Alanis.||
|2 weeks 1 day ago||You don't talk to enough||
You don't talk to enough people. There are tons of fans - and not just UVA and Wisconsin fans, sorry - that prefer the college game. You're coming from an incredibly biased viewpoint that can't see any more than one way of doing things.
I'm never going to prove that to you, and you're never going to prove that to me, but I can promise you this: yours is by far the more closed-minded viewpoint.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||If a lack of #1 seeds in 2006||
If a lack of #1 seeds in 2006 was a factor in the lower ratings from the previous year, then why did 2006 outdraw 2008? 2008 had all #1 seeds, and huge names to boot.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||"Quality" is highly||
"Quality" is highly subjective. Scoring and pace are not automatically the same as quality. Quality could just as easily mean more cohesive systems, better defense, and more parity.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I don't think||
I don't think so.
Roll to the bottom.
Florida/George Mason outdrew UCLA/LSU that year. It was the 9th-highest-rated FF game of 22 possible since 2004. It outdrew Kansas/UNC, MSU/UConn, UNC/Villanova, and so on.
The pace of NBA play in 1990 was 98.3 possessions, so despite the higher numbers, the NBA isn't even halfway back. Scoring right now is exactly the same as it was in 07-08, but pace is up, so why is it more appealing to watch more bricks? And I'd say, yes, the age limit has a lot to do with it. Arguably, if the average age is smaller yet there are no 18-year-olds in the league, that means players are retiring earlier, which means the league is doing a better job of identifying young talent and pushing out older players.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Homogenizing the games is the||
Homogenizing the games is the opposite of a good idea. When I want to watch up-and-down basketball with occasional attention given to defense, I'll watch the pro game. When I want to watch what college offers, I'll watch the college game.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||The NBA, no, actually not so||
The NBA, no, actually not so much. The NBA was a much faster, higher-scoring game 20 and 30 years ago, too. Teams averaged 106 points a game in 1990. Pace and scoring are way down. They bottomed out about 10 years ago and have been going upwards - and one thing that corresponds with that is the age limit, among other things. Rule changes helped, too. The NFL has been almost steady. Scoring is slightly up lately, by about a point or two per team, per game....and it happens to correspond almost exactly with a league-wide improvement in kicking accuracy. College football is different, sure, because in college football, tempo actually works. It doesn't work anywhere else.
And why should the low-talent teams be pushed against? Viewership and interest in March Madness would probably plummet without upsets. The first thing people talk about is who's most likely to get upset. The first games they cut to are the ones where the high seed is in danger of dropping. People loved the George Mason thing. If the crisis is a lack of viewers, the #1 way by far to exacerbate it is to make upsets disappear.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Louisville and Syracuse,||
Louisville and Syracuse, actually, but you do have a point. Games between big-time teams are going to draw audiences, yes? Regardless of style. Anywa, I didn't say UVA was the reason they watched, I suggested that people didn't exactly turn it off.
And I don't see where "most people" are saying this. I see a few sportswriters. I also see lots of writers and announcers saying it's bull puckey. Either way, it's just media blather.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||One thing it's worth pointing||
One thing it's worth pointing out: Lacrosse is undergoing the same "crisis." I don't think it's sport-specific, for what that's worth, I think it's a thing where coaches know that slowing the game down is better for their team. Which makes the idea of writing rules to force a more free-flowing game, basically pushing against the tides.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||I'm not sure it's a great||
I'm not sure it's a great counterpoint. People don't know the game is going to be free-flowing beforehand unless they know the teams are, and Michigan doesn't have that reputation.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||Most CBB viewers do NOT agree||
Most CBB viewers do NOT agree with you.
If that were true, people would be running to the hills and ignoring teams like UVA completely.
Instead UVA, during the last week of the regular season had two of the top ten most-watched sports programs of the week. Not college basketball programs, sports programs.
There seems to be this very misguided idea that what UVA and Wisconsin etc. do is bad for basketball. Not a shred of evidence to support it.
|2 weeks 1 day ago||This is a great||
This is a great column.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||Oh my God I hate how old that||
Oh my God I hate how old that broadcast looks. 2006 and it looks ancient.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||So is failure to use||
So is failure to use quotation marks when quoting something.
|2 weeks 2 days ago||#1 completely undermines your||
#1 completely undermines your argument though. Like, all the way. On-field success is the point, not recruiting success. Besides, Wisconsin struggles to get elite recruits for reasons far unrelated to redshirting. Elite recruits tend to come from the South and want to play in electric Oregon-style offenses, not the Beef-Town Pro-Stylers from dairyland. (The coaching turnover of late hasn't helped, either.)
On the flip side, UVA does a pretty good job lighting up the recruiting boards on February, because Mike London does exactly what you propose, and flops miserably in the fall. You're basically arguing that it's better to be Virginia than Wisconsin. Bonkers.
|2 weeks 3 days ago||Rebuttals:1: "Come work out||
1: "Come work out real hard, study for a year, and then we'll see" is nobody's marketing pitch. "You'll get a fair chance and if you prove you belong, then you'll play" is a more common one. "I guarantee you'll play" certainly works on some kids, but then you're stuck actually having to follow through. I can think of at least one coach who uses this pitch: Mike London. It works ... um, great. London's doing awesome.
2: The choice isn't between starters and freshmen. There are veteran backups. It doesn't take a freshman to take advantage of a blown assignment. And veterans are less likely to blow their own.
3: Freshmen commonly say that there's a huge difference between high school and college ... and they say so without ever having played in a game. All it takes to open their eyes to the difference is practice. And nobody's going to get a good feel for the game just by running 50 yards to cover a touchback. I mean, that's an incredible leap of faith on Jarrod Wilson with zilch in the way of evidence.
4: This is sort of like saying every play that doesn't score a touchdown is a failure. If I've got a senior quarterback, and the freshman who comes in doesn't unseat him, and redshirts instead, only a whackjob would call that a failure. Let's say, for the sake of argument, you get that perfect 22-player class full of NFL-caliber players and they all start as freshmen. Next year, what happens? Do they move aside for the next class of perfect players? Or are they good enough to keep playing? Some of these are salient points; #4 is really stupid. Everyone in this room, no points, mercy on your soul, etc.
5: This point assumes a player would be equally productive whether a true freshman or a redshirt freshman. Which in turn assumes that practice and lifting is literally 100% worthless.
6: Sometimes you do get players who are NFL-bound and basically going to leave after three years. Not too many people argue for redshirting those guys. However, let's assume something very logical. Let's say a player gets better every year. Does that sound right? If not, you need a new coach. So if a player gets better every year, his worst year is his freshman year and his best year is his fifth year. Why would you trade a player's best year for his worst?
7: Since this is just points 1 and 5 repeated, I'll ignore the inflationary pumping.
8: It's certainly true that every fifth-year senior takes the place of a potential freshman. But it really shouldn't need explaining that if it were hurting the team to do so, the coaches wouldn't invite the fifth-year player back.
9: You do realize that a non-redshirted player actually finds it easier to transfer, because he can do so any time he likes and not lose a year of eligibility. Redshirted players, on the other hand, are forced to wait til they get their degree.
10: Getting a 6th year is not that onerous; the reason it's rare is because it takes a specific set of circumstances. It's no harder than getting a 5th year for a player who never redshirted but blows out his knee in the first game of his senior year.
11: If you have a problem with players lollygagging, and putting forth no effort because they know they're redshirting, you have MAJOR issues that go beyond redshirting. You have leadership problems, you have coaching problems, and you're recruiting the wrong players. Good coaches - most coaches, actually - know how to prevent that. If a guy is going to screw around during his redshirt year, he's probably not going to just flip a switch and be a hard worker when he's not redshirting, either.
Bottom line: You should play a freshman if it will make your team better by doing so. If the freshman brings nothing that you can't get from a veteran, redshirt him. No, it's not always as simplistic as trading the player's worst year for his best - but often, it is.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||There's no such thing as it||
There's no such thing as it being for the best when the season ends unless there's a bunch of guys playing hurt or it's a total losing disaster of a season. This one wasn't up to expectations, but there's no way to spin it as good if we get left out of the NIT.
|2 weeks 4 days ago||I think such a law would have||
I think such a law would have a great chance of standing up to a court challenge. Discriminating among your customers is sometimes permissible, but tends to be very heavily scrutinized. Colluding with certain customers with the result that the price goes up for other customers has antitrust written all over it.