More on the demise of the Cinderella

While I would love to pontificate regarding baseball's real Opening Day, I feel as though I need to revisit my thoughts of last night, just to add some clarity.

First of all, I was at church during the Davidson/Kansas game last night, so I did not see. If I had, I would have, in all likelihood, been rooting for Davidson to pull off the upset. I totally get the urge to root for the underdog, and Davidson's run through the tournament was absolutely compelling and interesting. I was certainly sad to see it end. Secondly, I really believe that, had Davidson won, they would have stood a legitimate chance at making some noise in the Final Four. They may not have won a game, almost certainly would not have won the championship, but I don't think they would have been run off the floor by UNC. Though it's seed, size, and relative unknown status coming into the tournament fit the idea of Cinderella team pretty classically, in many ways Davidson was far from your traditional Cinderella. They played an absolutely brutal non-conference schedule, and fared quite well. In fact, after the loss to Kansas, Davidson has now played 3 of the 4 Final Four teams, faring extremely well, with a 12 point loss at UCLA, a 4 point loss at home against UNC, and the 2 point loss to Kansas yesterday. They also hung with Duke, who despite their end of season collapse was among the top 10 teams in the country for most of the year, falling by only 6. This team was battle tested and unafraid.

I'm not lashing out at the Cinderella story, nor would I suggest for a second that Davidson having made the Final Four wouldn't have been a terrific story. It absolutely would have, and it would have been exceedingly compelling, though possibly providing a lesser caliber of basketball at the Final Four. I get all that, and I even buy into it. If Davidson could have somehow finished the run and won the title, it would have been one of the greatest stories ever. What I found ridiculous was this idea that absent the underdog story, this Final Four would be somehow lackluster, and somehow lacking drama.

That couldn't be farther from the truth, in my opinion. What you lose by not having an underdog/Cinderella in the Final Four is not drama, or a compelling storyline, but rather the easy storyline. I think I've mentioned in my previous critiques of the media that I find the media to be lazy. This is a prime example of that. And to be honest, I have a hard time being too hard on them for that. Having run this blog for several months now, wanting to put something up everyday, and having days when I just don't find anything particularly interesting to write about, I understand the temptation to gravitate to the easy story. However, it creates problems. In effort to create mass appeal beyond hardcore sports fans, the sports media often emphasizes storylines much more strongly than the actual game itself. It's the phenomenon that's led to the constant shuffling of the Monday Night Football booth for a more entertaining combination - the idea that we need to find ways to get people to pay attention to sporting events who aren't terribly interested in the games themselves. That means that these easy storylines get beaten into our skulls as sports fans. As a result, they are the things that we expect and look for, and so when they are absent, it can be easy for the fan to feel like something is missing.

The real fallacy here is the idea that this lack of a Cinderella story at the Final Four is in any way new or different. Sure, this is the first time that all the 1 seeds have made the Final Four, but I could give you a number of years prior to this one where the Final Four didn't contain any teams that could be described as Cinderellas, or even underdogs. In fact, last year would be a perfect example, with 2 1 seeds and 2 2 seeds. Of course, there was the easy storyline of Florida's quest to repeat to keep anyone from noticing that. Honestly though, I think what some people, fan and media alike, are expressing is more about disappointment with the end of Davidson's run than the composition of the Final Four. And to be completely fair, I don't think it's a majority sentiment, or even that close to being one, but there is an undercurrent that is clearly there in both entities.

Despite my general criticism of the mainstream media, I have really been enjoying listening to Dan Patrick's radio show over the last several months since it came on the air in Harrisburg. I think he's a fair journalist, and a great entertainer. However, I have to admit to taking some perverse pleasure in listening to him seemingly grope around trying to get his head around the story of this year's Final Four. "Who do I root for? Who is the underdog? There isn't one." To which I say, exactly! And that's a great story in and of itself, one that will in all likelihood lead to incredible basketball, since we're left with 4 teams who are, and have been all season, championship caliber.

Fortunately for the media, they've quickly found another easy storyline, that being the matchup of UNC coach Roy Williams, with his former employer, Kansas, in the semi-finals. Quite frankly, I'd rather they had a Cinderella story to beat into the ground.

Isn't this exactly what we should be hoping for?

First of all, I would like to take a moment to congratulate my good friend, the trained chimp, who seems poised to win office pools around the country this year, with the historic advancement of all four #1 seeds to the Final Four of the NCAA tournament. You were the better man, so to speak, this year.

Secondly, I'd like to comment on the sentiment I've already heard from a few people in the last couple hours, that having all the #1 seeds in the Final Four is somehow not compelling and/or uninteresting. I suppose that might be the case, if you don't have an appreciation if you don't find great basketball to be compelling or interesting. It would be one thing if this sentiment was coming from a casual fan, but a couple of these folks are serious college basketball fans.

It appears that, at least to some degree, we've been somehow brainwashed into thinking that there needs to some compelling back story in order to make a Final Four noteworthy. And that's sad. The reality, as I've pointed out in past posts, is that in most cases, a favorite ends up winning the championship, so any of these compelling stories come to an unpleasant end 9 out of 10 times. In fact, in a lot of years, the Final Four has ended up being anti-climatic relative to the rest of the tournament, because regardless of the story lines, you often wind up with matchups that just aren't particularly interesting as they play out on the court. As much fun as the Cinderella stories are, midnight comes inevitably, and generally with a level of authority. People like to talk about how wonderful George Mason's run in '06 was, and it was a great story, but we forget that it ended with them being dominated by Florida as part of what was a very blah Final Four. We talk about how wild the 2000 tournament was, when 1 seed Michigan State was the only team above a 5 to make the Final Four, but conveniently leave out that the Spartans ran roughshod through the weak Final Four field for their title.

Let's really think about what this year's Final Four represents. The 4 1 seeds are, at least in theory (and I believe in practice this year), the 4 teams that were the best in the country all season long. If that weren't enough, you also have 3 extremely storied programs in UCLA, UNC, and Kansas, along with an extremely exciting Memphis team crashing the party out of Conference USA. Almost invariably in other years, you have at least one semi-final that is a mis-match, or you have a feeling that one of the semi-finals is the real championship game. That is certainly not the case this year, as we are guaranteed 3 matchups that would all make very satisfying title game matchups. Of the Final Fours that I can remember, other than the ones that Duke emerged from as champion, my all-time favorite has to be 1993. Not coincidentally, that was the year when the Final Four had the lowest combined seeds in history, prior to this year. There were 3 1s (UNC, Kentucky, Michigan) and a 2 (Kansas). 3 truly great matchups, combined with a signature moment (Chris Webber's ill-fated call of a timeout Michigan did have) in the title game. Truly classic. I expect a similar feel to this year.

If you're a serious college hoops fan and are somehow turned off by this year's Final Four, I have to believe there's something wrong with you, because apparently you need something other than great basketball to pique your interest. Isn't this what we're all clamouring for in college football, having the best 4 teams playing for the title?

So, if you're a little down on this year's Final Four, I urge you to give it a chance, and appreciate it for what it is - the absolute highest level of basketball that the college game can offer you. I have a feeling you won't come away disappointed.

Update

Well, with UNC and UCLA's wins tonight, I went 2-0 and got my two championship game participants into the Final Four. Of course, so did the trained chimp, though it's not certain which teams the trained chimp would go with at the Final Four. This is really shaping up to be the year where the trained chimp method could easily produce an office pool champion, if the person using it picked correctly amongst the 1 seeds once they took them all to the Final Four. This is shaping up to be the 4th time that 3 1 seeds make the Final Four, and I think this is the best look we've had in quite some time at the elusive Final Four of all #1 seeds, which has never happened. We'll see. Given that this would be only the 4th time in the last 24 years that the trained chimp method would yield more than 2 Final Four picks, I stand by my earlier assessment of it as a solid strategy for avoiding a crash and burn, but not a winning strategy. I will be doing a full scale evaluation of past results to see how the method fares historically in the earlier rounds.

I just realized I can't do better than 2nd in my pool, but that I would definitely finish 2nd if I get the UCLA over UNC title game result. I came out of the 2nd round down 10 points to a guy who also has that scenario (I had one more than him in the first round, he had 3 more than me in the 2nd), and due to the somewhat unorthodox scoring of this bracket, I can't get ahead of him, even though if Texas beats Memphis, I'd have 3 Final Four picks to his 2.

Seriously, we get it already!

Okay, so my bracket took a significant step towards recovery last night, as I was 4-0 in the first night of Sweet 16 games, and moved up from a tie for 21st into a tie for 11th. Now, the best I can do tonight is 2-2, since 2 teams I had winning tonight were knocked out in the 2nd round. I could really use some help. A Davidson win would be nice, but a Michigan State win over Memphis would be huge. I need Memphis not to make the Final Four, because if they do, I don't think I can get ahead of at least one player who has UCLA over UNC in the final like I do.

But, that's not really why I'm writing this post. While I watching the late games wrap up last night, I flipped over to Spike and watched portions of the season finale of Pros vs. Joes. If you're unfamiliar with this show, the basic concept is that they have a bunch of amateur athletes (the Joes) compete in a variety of events against several former professional athletes (the Pros). The show is in it's 3rd season, and I found it as quite a novelty at first, but haven't really watched it much since the first season. Ultimately, the show centers around the banter between pros and joes, and around the pros generally making the joes look pretty silly in their events. It's not really about beating the pros in the various competitions, as much as it is about losing to them by less than the other joes.

They changed the format around this year, and one thing I noticed in the few times that I watched was that for the most part, the competition now centers on the pros beating the living crap out of the joes physically. One of the events invariably involved going up against a former football player and getting crushed, and on several occasions, the Joes were asked to get into the ring against a retired boxer.

The finale, however, took this to a whole new level, due to the participation of Bob Sapp, a 6' 5", 375 beast of a man who was briefly an offensive lineman in the NFL, before becoming a beast of an MMA fighter. The last chance for the Joes to qualify for the decisive "overtime' competition involved an attempt to survive 3 minutes in the ring with Sapp, who was about 200 pounds heavier than either Joe he faced, and obviously more skilled. One of the Joes stepped into the ring with Sapp having 9 stitches in his chin from a semi-final mishap, and a deeply bruised rib from an attempt to tackle former Pro Bowl RB Jamal Anderson earlier in the final. Needless to say, both Joes were quickly and mercilessly dispatched. For added measure, Sapp had donned football pads and blocked for Anderson in the first competition of the night.

I really have to ask what we've come to when this kind of thing seems like a good idea for TV. Please, don't get me wrong. While I'm not a big fan of boxing and MMA, I at least recognize the appeal of those sports, where well-trained athletes fight each other. But we're basically talking about guys who are/were world class athletes getting to use average guys who stand zero chance of defending themselves as punching bags, and in most cases really seeming to enjoy it. I don't think that one guy surviving 8-10 seconds longer than another against that kind of punishment is really any kind of worthwhile measure of their athletic ability. I watched the show, but I really did not enjoy that segment.

And, while I understand they are being paid, I have to question what kind of athlete signs up for this sort of assignment, and takes joy in it the way a lot of these pros clearly do. Not that they've gotten any real A-list athletes on the show, but my opinion of several of the athletes I've seen on the show has been significantly lowered by their conduct, whether they are mainly just playing for the cameras or not. I understand these guys are competitors of the highest level, but you'd think they could find a different way to exercise that competitive edge, and take a little less joy in embarrassing people who we all know have no real business being out there with them to begin with. I'd love to see the show return to it's earlier days, when it was much more about the actual skill of the competitors than it was about their ability to absorb a physical beating without actually dying.

Looking back

Okay, so after a massive post giving all kinds of advice for filling out your NCAA tournament brackets for your pool, my bracket is, predictably, in shambles. I got off to a great start by my standards, picking 25 out of the 32 first round games correctly, and sitting 2nd in my pool after the first round. The 2nd round did not go so well, however, as I finished 8-8, and lost a Final Four team (Georgetown) and another team I had going to the Elite 8 (Pitt). The end result, I'm now tied for 21st out of 34. The reality is that shambles is probably a bit of an overstatement. My championship game participants and champion teams are still there, and if I can get that and virtually everything else, I can probably put a solid run together.

The question is, did following my own advice get me burned? And I would say that, to date, the answer is no, and in fact, I believe it helped me to a much stronger setup than I would normally have had. There is a ton of latitude within the realm of the advice I laid out, and I never guaranteed a good showing for following it.

Anyhow, let's look back at the advice that pertained to the first 2 rounds, and see how following it panned out.

Pick the top 4 seeds in each bracket to win their first round game
All of the 1, 2, and 3 seeds won their first games, and two 4 seeds (Vandy and UConn) fell, leading me to a 14-2 record in those 16 games. Following this strategy strictly also kept me from picking the "trap" upset of 14 Georgia over 3 Xavier. Getting that right, I took Xavier out to the Elite 8, and they are in the Sweet 16, with a favorable matchup to get to the Elite 8.

Don't fall in love with those 11 and 12 seeded teams
My advice was not to pick more than 1 or 2 upsets in this range. There were actually 3, as two 5 seeds and a 6 seed lost. I wound up not picking any upsets in this range, so I netted a 5-3 record in those games. One of those upsets did hurt me, as I had 6 seed USC going to the Sweet 16. In retrospect, I should probably modify this piece of advice to suggest picking at least 1 upset in this range, as their are usually a couple.

The money games in the first round are those 7 v. 10 and 8 v. 9 matchups
As a group, these are basically a coin-flip, as I said. I went 6-2 in these games, which was a nice showing that was the difference between a solid 25 win first round, and a lackluster 22-23.

Advance all of the #1 seeds to the Sweet 16
It's very good that I followed this piece of advice, or my second round would have been even worse. All 4 1 seeds are still alive, so that was an easy 4-0 in those second round games. I didn't have the numbers at the time, but on the broadcast they showed that 1 seeds had only lost 12 second round games since the field went to 64, now 12 in 24, which means on average a 1 seed loses in the 2nd round once every year. Trying to find one is too high a risk. As my advice suggested but didn't command, I also took all the 2 seeds to the Sweet 16 as well, which stung a bit as 2 of them went down, including Final Four pick Georgetown. Still, that was 6-2 for those games, as I suggested was the worst you would do taking all of the 1s and 2s to the Sweet 16. The real issue was taking Georgetown onto the Final Four, not specifically picking them to win that game.

The rest of my advice was related to things that we won't know about for another week or more, and I'll evaluate it as the time comes. The bottom line here is that I think my advice served me pretty well. I didn't shoot myself in the foot with crazy early round picks, which was the objective here. And really, if Georgetown doesn't blow a 17 point second round lead, I'd be in excellent shape at this point. Those are the kinds of things that no set of guidelines are going to help you avoid.

Not quite enough. Falcons fall in title game.

Well, sadly, once again the Lady Falcons dream ended one win short of completion, as they fell to the HPU Yellowjackets by a score of 68-54. The Falcons finish their incredible season at 30-3, and as the national runners-up for the 2nd time in school history. I'm sure they are bitterly disappointed now, but as they step away, the Falcon seniors can reflect on an outstanding career and final season.

The story of the game from my perspective was the Howard Payne defense. Howard Payne's aggressive 2-3 zone had Messiah struggling all game, and they forced the Lady Falcons into a high number of turnovers. I admittedly didn't pay close enough attention to HPUs game yesterday to be sure that the 2-3 zone was HPUs standard defense, but I was very concerned when I saw them run it. For a team that has the kind of shooters that Messiah always does, this year being no exception, the Lady Falcons have traditionally struggled when attacking a zone. The Falcons also, as I feared, struggled on the defensive glass, given HPU way too many second chances in the way of offensive rebounds. All that being said, HPU was simply a better team, in my opinion. It was clear from the early going why they had rolled to their undefeated record.

Gotta say that, despite the result, getting to watch the game on TV was about the coolest thing ever. It was almost surreal.

I was also thinking today about what an incredible run Messiah athletics has been on over the last 8 years. At the beginning of 2000 (I was starting my 2nd semester of my sophomore year at the time), Messiah had no national champions, either from teams or individuals. The program had been to a combined 8 Final Fours (6 from the field hockey team, 2 from the soccer team), with only 2 runner up finishes to show for it (both field hockey).

Since 2000, Messiah has seen the following:
2 individual national champions (Mike Helm - wrestling 2000, Chris Boyles - decathalon 2002)
6 national champion teams (men's soccer - 2000, 2002, 2004-2006, women's soccer - 2005)
8 national runner up teams (field hockey - 2001,2002,2005,2006, women's soccer 2002, 2007, women's basketball - 2001, 2008)
19 Final Four teams (field hockey, 2001,2002,2004-2006, women's soccer 2002, 2004-2007, mens soccer 2000-2002,2004-2007, womens basketball 2001, 2008)

It's a pretty incredible time to be a fan of Messiah athletics, when you think about it all in that context. Let's hope it doesn't end anytime soon!

Sizing up the competition

Well, I watched most of the second semi-final, and I have to say, I was quite impressed with Messiah's opponent in the championship game, the Howard Payne Yellowjackets, who defeated UW-Whitewater by a score of 69-59. This was not unexpected, given that HPU came into the game undefeated, and having outscored their opponents by an average margin of 28 points.

The Yellowjackets are led by WBCA D-III National Player of the Year, G Meia Daniels. Daniels is extremely quick, probably more so than anyone the Falcons have to defend her. She struck me as the kind of guard that has given Messiah's defense fits in the past, and I'm most recently thinking back to Kean in January, and in last year's NCAA tournament. Also, unlike Oglethorpe, HPU will not be at a size disadvantage down low, as they have two very strong interior players in SR F Kimberly Hoffman, and SR C Stacey Blalock. I think Blalock in particular could cause Messiah some problems due to her size/strength combination, which I don't know that any of Messiah's defenders can match. Those three anchor the HPU offense. Defensively, HPU is extremely stout as well, as the fact that they are holding opponent's under 33% shooting for the year attests to. My biggest concern for the Falcons is that HPU is a dominant rebounding team, and Messiah tends to struggle on the boards against good competition, particularly in terms of giving up a number of offensive rebounds, due to the aggressive kind of man to man defense they play.

Okay, enough of the doom and gloom, I do see some areas where Messiah has the edge. As talented as Meia Daniels is, I don't think she's going to be able to deal with Nikki Lobach's offensive array, assuming she is guarding Lobach. I don't see anyone else on that team being able to do the job, so I expect this to be the matchup. Nikki has a slight height advantage, and I believe is also stronger, which favors her post up attack. HPU did play a fairly aggressive zone for at least part of the time I was watching, so perhaps it will be more of a collective responsbility. And, while I don't see anyone matching with Blalock of HPU in terms of size and strength, HPU doesn't seem to have anyone on the interior who is going to be able to deal with Sal Shani's size/speed/athleticism combination. As she has been throughout the tournament, Shani is going to be the X factor.

I haven't seen enough of HPU to even begin to predict an outcome with any expertise, especially given my obvious bias. The keys for the Falcons, as they have been pretty much all tournament long, will be to establish some sort of offensive presence in the paint, and to knock down the shots from the perimeter when they present themselves. They will also need to dig down deep and fight for every rebound and loose ball. I think HPU has to be favored, but if Messiah can do the things I just mentioned, they are certainly capable of bringing the walnut and bronze back to Grantham.

So, one more time for 2008, go Falcons!

Let's do it one more time! Messiah to the title game!

The Lady Falcon seniors have spent a lot of time this postseason talking about wanting to keep playing together as long as possible. Well, they've extended their season as long as they possibly can, and tomorrow they'll play their last game together, win or lose. Messiah held on to their halftime lead and defeated Oglethorpe by a score of 80-60 to advance to tomorrow's national title game, the 2nd title game appearance in program history.

Unlike Messiah's last trip to the title game in 2001, which came pretty much out of nowhere in what was only Messiah's 3rd ever appearance in the NCAAs, and which came after they had been absolutely torched in their conference title game against E-Town, Messiah opened the season as one of the favorites in D-III, and have been in the Top 10 in the rankings all season, spending a lot of time in the top 5. Also, unlike the 2001 trip, when Messiah ran into a dominant Washington University team that had won the last 3 championships, this time, Messiah boasts Mike Miller as the only coach with previous Final Four experience. I'll probably take a peak at the 2nd semi-final between undefeated Howard Payne and UW-Whitewater to get an idea about what the Falcons are up against, but I have very little doubt that the Falcons will have a much better look at the title this year.

As for the game itself, the second half was rather uneventful, with the Falcons content to slow the game down and maintain their lead. Oglethorpe was able to hold their own much better in the paint and on the boards in the second half, and was able to whittle down the Falcons lead to 14 at one point, but it didn't get any closer than that. Oglethorpe probably could have made a game out of it as the Falcons offense stalled, but they failed to capitalize on a number of very good opportunities.

I don't have precise stats, but what impressed me the most was the total team effort from the Falcons. All-American Nikki Lobach was a factor, but not the biggest factor, with only 11 points. Messiah had at least 2 (Schurr and Shani) and possibly 1 or 2 others (Kalb and Reed) in double figures. The performance clearly gave their potential opponents a lot to think about as they scouted the game.

So, Messiah will tip it off at 6:05 tomorrow evening for the championship. There's no online video feed, so if you don't have CSTV, you're out of luck as far as watching the game tomorrow. Messiah will have the radio feed available. As a reminder, I will not be able to watch the game live, so if you can follow it live, please refrain from calls or blog comments that would give away the result! I will post here when I'm done.

Bring it home, ladies!

Halftime update

Messiah 51, Oglethorpe 33

Very fast paced first half, as the score would indicate. Messiah started out slow, but opened the game up quickly with a 13-0 run after Oglethorpe had hit a 3 to go up 10-9. The Falcons have had the ultimate in inside/out attack, with Lauren Schurr bombing away, along with a little help from her friends, for 6 made 3 pointers, and Sal Shani dominating inside with 14 points off the bench.

Oglethorpe has a decided height disadvantage, and Messiah has exploited that to dominate the glass, particularly the offensive glass. Messiah's real strength is the perimeter, so if Oglethorpe can't hold their own in the paint, the story of this game won't change much in the 2nd half.

I love the internet!

If I haven't declared my undying love for the internet in this space before, it's long overdue.

What is spurring me to this praise? Well, as you know if you've been paying attention to this blog over the last couple weeks, Messiah's women's basketball team has advanced to the D-III Final Four. Their semi-final game is in about 40 minutes, in Holland, MI. I am in my normal New Cumberland, PA locale, and yet thanks to the internet, I should be able to actually watch the game live. How freakin' awesome is that? For those who might be interested in doing the same, go here. There's a free registration involved.

If the Lady Falcons get the job done, the title game will be at 6:00 PM tomorrow, and will be broadcast on TV by CSTV, so make plans to be somewhere that has that. Fortunately for me, my house happens to be one of those places. Unfortunately for me, I have church at 6:00 pm. But back on the fortunate side, this kind of situation is why God made DVRs :-)

Assuming the video streaming works out, you can expect a game report from me later tonight.

Go Falcons!

Overblown Non-Story of the Week Award

It's been far too long since I've done one of these, and the media thankfully gift-wrapped one for me. I mentioned in an entry a few weeks ago that I personally don't think that Barry Bonds' continuing unemployment is the result of him being blacklisted or some sort of collusion. That suggestion has been out there, but not getting a whole lot of run.

However, it has gotten a lot of run in the last 24 hours, because, if you're to believe a lot of the major media outlets, Donald Fehr announced yesterday that the union was going to launch an investigation into whether there was collusion specifically in Bonds' case. That would be something of a story, except that's not really what happened.

Here's a link to an article that details what actual went down. Fehr was talking to reporters, he was apparently asked about whether the union was going to look into Bonds' situation, and he responded that the union always looks into the free agent markets each year, and that if they found a situation with any player that's worth pursuing, they pursue it. He also went out of his way to say he wasn't suggesting or accusing anything, and that he hadn't even talked to Bonds or his agent. He basically said "Of course we're going to look into that, we always look into those matters."

So, Fehr's acknowledment that the union would do the same thing they always do somehow became front page link material on ESPN.com and other major websites, and had sports talk radio declaring that the union was launching an investigation into Bonds' case. To the media who managed to make a story appear out of thin air, I say bravo.

There is absolutely nothing newsworthy here, at all.

Fighting through the bracket mess

Okay, we have less than 24 hours to go until the start of the greatest sporting event in the world, the NCAA basketball tournament. (No, last night's "opening night game doesn't count, sorry Mt. St. Mary's) And that can only mean one thing for most people - you're busy agonizing over your bracket picks for your office pool or other contests. I've been there, and I'm here to help.

Now, this has to come with a disclaimer - I'm by no means an expert on picking the tournament, and my track record in bracket contests demonstrates that quite clearly. However, I've become much better over the years after learning from some of my own catastrophic mistakes, and I'm going to share my acquired wisdom in hopes that you might avoid some of my past fates.

First, some general guidelines:

Keep it simple, stupid
One of the biggest mistakes those of us who follow college basketball regularly make when filling out brackets is that we try to get too cute, and swing for the fences, trying to predict every single upset throughout the tournament. The end result of this strategy in most years is that you look smart for picking a couple of the big upsets, but you miss on a bunch of the others, and end up flaming out and finishing well behind that secretary whose system for picking games involves picking the team whose mascot they like the best. Look, if you're competing in ESPN's bracket challenge where there are only prizes for the top handful of finishers out of millions of entries, then yes, your best home run swing is required. You're going to need a near perfect bracket for it to be worth anything. However, in an office pool or a pool with your friends where you might be up against 25 people at most, a solid double in the gap is probably going to get the job done.

You can't win the pool on the first weekend, but you can definitely lose it
There are two ways that you can lose the pool on the first weekend of the tournament, one of which is obvious, and one of which is more subtle. The obvious way is that you can have a couple of Final Four picks go down in the first or second rounds, and maybe your champion. You'll realize immediately that your bracket is shot to hell, and it will probably reside in the garbage can by the end of the day Sunday. However, you can also lose the pool in that first weekend when a couple of your wild hunch upset picks go the wrong way, and teams you had going out in the first two rounds end up making deep runs. This results in a much more slow and painful death to your bracket, one which won't truly reveal itself until the end of the 2nd weekend, or maybe even Final Four weekend. Here's the simple truth: Unless your pool has some unusual rules, the first round is pretty much just for show, and you're much better off taking fewer first round risks in favor of keeping the big picture in mind.

Don't buy into the myth that you have go out on a limb to be successful
The average fan tends to focus on the upsets that often occur in the earlier rounds and portray the tournament as some crazy, unpredictable adventure. While there is the occassional year where all hell breaks lose, the simple reality is that by the end of the tournament, we're usually left with a fairly predictable results. There's nothing manly or sexy about picking a serious darkhorse team for a Final Four run, in fact, in most cases, it's suicidal.

And now, with those general principles in mind, here's some specific tips
Pick the top 4 seeds in each bracket to win their first round game
No number one seed has ever lost in the first round, and the first time one of them does, everyone else will miss it too. You're an idiot for picking against a 1 seed in the first round, even if one time it actually happens. You might see a #2 seed lose once every 5 or 6 tournaments. Again, there's just no need to try and be a hero picking against them. That 2 seed is way more likely to go the Final Four than to lose in the first round. It gets more tempting when you get to the 3 and 4 seeds. Invariably, 1 or 2 of these teams are going to get upset every year. So, if you have a REALLY good hunch on one of these matchups, you can play it, but no more than one. Following this tip is going to get you at least a 14-2 record in those games virtually every year, and you vastly decrease your chances of picking against an eventual Final Four team in the first round. Gunning for 16-0 in these games is too big a risk to your long term chances given the realities of the actual reward.

Don't fall in love with those 11 and 12 seeded teams
Once you get down below the 4 seeds, upsets are more common, but not as much as you might think. Generally, you're going to see maybe 2 or 3 5 and 6 seeds fall in the opening round, and so I wouldn't recommend picking more than 1 or 2 upsets in this range.

The money games in the first round are those 7 v. 10 and 8 v. 9 matchups
The 8 v. 9 matchups have always been coinflip games, and the 7 v. 10 matchups have become more so in the last few years. So, rather than spending a lot of energy trying to come up with the big upsets, you're better off trying to distinguish yourself in these matchups. The thing that makes these matchups particularly attractive is missing them probably isn't going to hurt you beyond the first round, since the winners will face #1 and #2 seeds in the second round, and generally bow out at this point.

Advance all of the #1 seeds to the Sweet 16
1 seeds do lose on occasion in the 2nd round, but unless there's some extreme extenuating circumstances, picking a 1 seed to go down before the Sweet 16 is a really bad play. Again, history says that #1 seed is much more likely to go the Final Four than to go down in the 2nd round, so you're setting yourself up for that slow, painful death I talked about earlier. 2 seeds are somewhat more vulnerable in 2nd round games, so if you want to play a hunch with one of them, go ahead. But the reality is that if you even go ahead and take all the #2 seeds to the Sweet 16 as well, you're probably going to go at least 6-2 in 2nd round games involving the 1s and 2s.

Pick a Final Four that consists of 4 teams whose seeds add up to 10 or less
As a more general guideline, I suggest taking 2 #1 seeds to the Final Four, because multiple #1s make the Final Four more often than they don't. Again, this is where the perception that the tournament is unpredictable as a rule just doesn't hold water. I've heard folks suggest that "this might be the year" that the seeds of the teams in the Final Four add up to single digits. The reality is that in 13 of the 23 tournaments since the field expanded to 64 teams, the total of the seeds of the Final Four teams added up to 9 or less, and there were 2 other tournaments where the total was 10, for 15 of 23 tournaments where this rule held true, or 2/3. If you REALLY want to get adventurous, you can go as high as 12, but there have only been 4 times when the number has been higher than that.

Don't pick a team seeded worse than 4th to make the Final Four
Yes, this will happen on occasion, but only on occasion, and you'll never really see it coming, nor will anyone else. A team seeded 5th or worse has made the Final Four 11 teams in 23 years, which accounts for about 12% of all Final Four teams. That 5 seed you like so much is much more likely to get bounced on the first weekend than to make it to the 3rd, so stay away. Really, I'd like to extend to the rule to include 4 seeds as well, because more than 75% of Final Four teams have been seeded 3rd or better, but I'm willing to let you hang yourself picking a 4.

Pick a #1 seed to win the title
Again, the reality that the tournament ends up holding form at the end more often than it doesn't comes back to play. #1 seeds have accounted for more championships (14) than every other seed combined (9) since the tournament expanded to 64 teams.

So, there you have it, the sum of my wisdom regarding picking the tournament. Do with it what you will. I certainly won't guarantee victory if you follow my road map (obviously you still have to pick the right teams within the constraints of my guidelines, and that's not easy), but 9 years out of 10, you'll stay alive late into the game and give yourself a good look at the prize. You'll also keep the spectacular flameouts to a minimum.

For my part, and for the public record, my Final Four is UCLA, Texas, UNC and Georgetown, with UCLA defeating UNC for the championship.

On Steroids In America

This got lost in the shuffle while I was traveling, and thus I haven't mentioned it before, but I wanted to put out there that I consider this required reading for anyone who has serious interest in the matter of performance enhancing drugs in sports. The link is to the first of a 3 part feature that ran in this week's Sports Illustrated, entitled "Steroids in America". Links to the other parts are available from the first link.

I found this feature to be excellent for a number of reasons. First of all, it was the first attempt I've encountered in the mainstream media to frame the debate raging around the use of steroids and HGH in sports within the larger context of their use in American society. For the most part, coverage has gone in reverse on this issue, focusing on the problem of steroids in sports, and then moving on to a larger scope, one which for the most part only ends up encompassing use by young athletes. The feature makes it quite clear that these drugs are rampant throughout society, and not just in the sporting sector. Law enforcement, Hollywood, and hip-hop are the major areas that are discussed, but they also talk about the growing number of regular citizens who are using HGH/testosterone in an effort to fend off some of the effects of aging.

The feature also points out how the legitimate medical community has been woefully behind the curve in addressing the effectiveness and impact of steroids, due to some very poor initial interaction with performance enhancers as they began to come into use. The reality is that, in a lot of cases, we're having discussions about things that we really don't fully understand yet, in terms of their long term effects, both positive and negative.

However, what I enjoyed the most was the look into the future. Right now, the debate regarding performance enhancers in sports can be relatively straightforward. What are being widely used now are controlled substances, are illegal, and have (or are at least perceived to have) dangerous side-effects. However, as our understanding of genetics advances, we may be on the verge of being able to effect "performance enhancement" at the genetic level, through gene therapy/transfer. For instance, scientists have done genetic work with mice that allowed them to double their muscle mass in a matter of weeks, without any actual exercise routine. Steroids, eat your heart out. As you might expect, athletes are looking at being on the leading edge of this. What the medical community that is pursuing all of this fears is that, much as has happened with steroids, the "misuse" by athletes and the controversy surrounding that will stigmatize what they foresee as incredible, legitimate medical breakthroughs that have the potential to seriously impact the lives of those with significant ailments in a positive way.

Ultimately, we're going to have to deal with the question of what we want/expect our athletes to be. In my opinion, society is rather conflicted on that, even though most people aren't necessarily aware of it. I point out that conflict like this: If a player takes steroids to help him get stronger, he's cheating. However, if a player gets laser vision correction to help him see better, he's not. Both are artificial methods that have performance enhancing capabilities. Right now, that conflict is one we don't have to really deal with. Steroids are illegal and potentially dangerous, laser vision correction, not so much. At some point in the future, that easy distinction of legality/danger is going to be taken away, but I do not believe that the conflict will disappear. I think steroids/performance enhancing drugs in sports offend the sensibilities of the average fan on a level that goes beyond their illegality and any potential danger associated with them.

The anti-rant rant

As promised, here it is: My annual post-NCAA tournament selection rant. And it's probably a lot different than most post-selection rants you've ever encountered. You see, most post-selection rants involve explaining why team A should have gotten in (sometimes, but not always, identifying the team B they should replace) There's usually negative language directed at the tournament selection committee, and the rant tends to contain emotion laden words like "screwed", "snubbed", "raw deal", and two of my personal favorite when applied in reference to something in sports "injustice" and "travesty". And generally, you'll see someone calling for the tournament to expand, perhaps even going as far as suggesting that there should be another full round added, taking the tournament from it's current 65 teams to 128.

No, you see, my rant will not be one of these kind of rants. In fact, my rant will be about those rants. I was actually, in many ways, quite thankful to be travelling yesterday, because it allowed me an easy way to avoid all the post-selection madness, which, based on the radio this morning, was relatively muted this year, but still very much present.

Allow me to frame these kind of rants in a bit of perspective. There are approximately 340 schools with Division I basketball programs at present. So, that means that with the current tournament size of 65 teams, about 20% of all Division I teams get an invitation to the NCAA tournament. Now, 31 of those are automatic bids that go to conference champions, leaving 34 bids as at-large bids to be awarded at the discretion of the selection committee. So, for the sake of insanity, let us assume that, by some major fluke, in a given year, all 31 automatic bids wind up in the hands of teams that would clearly not be tournament caliber. This would very likely never happen, but is, I suppose, possible due to the fact that most conferences, including all of the major conferences, award their automatic bids based on the conference tournament, rather than the regular season. But if it did happen, the committee would still be left with the ability to invite what it believed to be the top 10% of Division I teams to play for the national championship. In most years, the lowest seeded at-large teams wind up in the 11-12 seed range, so typically in order to be selected as an at-large, you're generally going to have to convince the committee you're among the best 45 teams in the country.

I lay all that out to say this - if over the course of a 30+ game regular season, your team has failed to demonstrate clearly that it is among the best 45 teams in the country, then in my opinion, you have clearly demonstrated that you are NOT the best team in the country, and thus you don't have a legitimate gripe about being excluded from the championship tournament. When you get down to the last few teams in/first few teams out, we're no longer talking about teams who have truly earned the right to play for a championship, we're talking about teams we need to use to fill spots in the bracket. I've heard teams who were among the "snubbed" referred to as teams that could "definitely have won a game or two in the tournament", as if that means something. Last time I checked, it takes 6 games to win the tournament, not one or two, and so as long as we aren't leaving out teams that have shown themselves as being capable of doing that, I think we're okay.

To get specific, let's look at the two poster child teams for "snubs" this year: Virginia Tech and Arizona State. Both teams had similar records (19-13 and 19-12, respectively). Both teams finished with about a .500 conference record (9-7 and 9-9), and neither team was in the top 3 of their conference (4th and 5th). Could either of these teams get hot and win a couple games had they been invited to the tournament? Yeah, probably. Can you make a case for their inclusion over 1 or more teams that did get invited? Probably, but it's really all subjective. Does any of that really matter? From where I sit, no. There are teams that earn the right to play for the title, and those that have it graciously bestowed upon them by the selection committee. Teams with resumes like these clearly fall into the latter category when they get into the tournament. And thus, the failure of the committee to bestow said grace in these cases falls far short of a "screw job","raw deal", or an "injustice", even in the sporting sense.

All of that is to say, I just don't care that Virginia Tech, Arizona State, and their kind aren't going to the tournament, even if a couple of similar teams are, and I never have. And neither should you, unless you happen to be a fan of one of those teams, in which case, simmer on. The only reasons I can fathom for the media's incessant fascination with these kind of teams every year are a) standard media willingness to blow up a "controversy" whenever perceived in anyway, or b) a total loss of perspective on what the tournament actually is, that being the process for determining the NCAA champion. I suspect both forces are at work. For my part, I've suggested in the past that once the selection committee gets down to the last 3-4 available spots, they should just identify a group of 6-8 "bubble" teams and do a lottery. It would be about as defensible a way to bestow these bids as current selection processes, and it would be a lot more clear cut.

Look, if you, or anyone else, wants to sit and debate the relative merits of Virginia Tech, Arizona State, and the similar teams that did get an invite to the dance, that's great. I'm not saying this isn't a worthwhile debate to have. But please, unless you have an emotional attachment to a school involved, check the heavy, emotion-laden words at the door. They just don't apply here.

Oh, and by the way, you have to love anyone whose reaction to one or two teams that they perceive as deserving being left out each year is at 63 more spots to the tournament. That's the sports equivalent of applying a tourniquet to a paper cut right there.

Heading home

Well, this will be my last post from the sunny land of Florida. I'm sitting at our gate in the Tampa airport, waiting for our flight to board in about 45 minutes, and enjoying the airport's free wireless connection. (Those greedy bastards want to charge for it in Baltimore)

We awoke to warm weather, but rather overcast skies. By 8:30 we were packed up and checked out of the hotel, on our way to the golf course. The clouds broke up about midway through the round, and we played the last several holes under beautiful blue skies. It wasn't best round ever, but given that until last night's brief stop at the driving range, I hadn't swung my clubs in 4 1/2 months, it was alright. To be honest, if this was the worst round I shoot all season (and it likely won't be), it would be a very good year.

And so, this wraps up my chronicles of my trek to Clearwater. I'll be back tomorrow with more standard content for this blog, most likely my annual rant on the fallout from NCAA tournament Selection Sunday! You may ask how I can call it an annual rant since this is the first Selection Sunday since I've started posting regular. Well, I've ranted every year for a few years, it's just now I will actually write it down and share it with the world. And actually, if you go back to the original 4 posts I made when I started this blog back in '05, I believe you'll find one of them to be a rant similar to what you are likely to see tomorrow.

Day 2 in Clearwater

Weather-wise, today was everything that yesterday was not. It was 80 degrees and sunny, with a nice steady breeze blowing to keep things cool. From a baseball perspective, it was pretty much the same story, however, as the Phillies couldn't pitch, and lost 11-2. Ryan Howard did homer in his first at-bat, which was nice, cause he's had a habit of not hitting home runs when I watch him play. We were all the way down the left field line today, but in the 3rd row, which is as close to the field as I've ever been at a pro game. Pretty cool view, really, and right where the Phillies walk while going to/from the dugout.

Unfortunately, there is no photographic evidence of today. Someone who shall remain nameless (but I will say he's the writer behind a really cool sports blog) left the memory card for his camera in the card reader in the hotel room when we left today.

So anyhow, we'll try and get some sleep tonight, then get up, pack up, grab some breakfast, play some golf, and head for the airport. These whirlwind trips are fun, but non-stop!

And then there were 4 - Falcons 2 wins away from a title

Messiah 54, Tufts 48. The Lady Falcons are going to the Final Four!

Ugly first half, with the Falcons leading 21-13, and then continuing to lead throughout for the final margin. It's a rare occurance when you get to cut the nets down in your own gym twice in a season! (First time came after the conference championship game) The ladies will play Oglethorpe next weekend for their shot at a 2nd national title game appearance in program history.

Among the elite - Falcons roar back to advance!

Well, I obviously wasn't there, but I wanted to post the update anyhow.

Messiah beats Rochester 73-61 to advance to the Elite 8 for the 3rd time in school history, and the first since 2003! That margin makes it sound like it might not have been the most exciting game ever, but you couldn't be more wrong. Messiah trailed Rochester all throughout the first half, and went into halftime down by 6. Rochester roared out further at the start of the 2nd, going on an 11-2 to run, putting the Falcons down 43-28 with 16:46 to go, and I was mentally preparing to write their obituary. But the ladies refused to die, and outscored Rochester 45-18 over the remainder of the game. Man, I really wish I could have been there, instead of listening over the internet.

The Lady Falcons will play Tufts tomorrow at 7 for the chance to move onto the Final Four for the 2nd time in program history.

Poetic justice

So, apparently my efforts to inspire hatred and jealousy went out into the universe, and brought the PM rain that was forecast into the Clearwater area a bit ahead of schedule. It started to rain about an hour and 15 minutes before gametime, and kept it up right until gametime, which led to about a 30 minute delay to the start of the game. It also kept up a drizzle for most of the game, before going back to another steady rain in the 7th. Dad and I watched the first 3 innings standing underneath cover, and then went to our seats for 4 innings, before finally leaving after the 7th. I'm fairly certain that none of the pitchers the Phillies used will actually make the major league team, and it showed, leading to the 9-1 Braves victory. Anyhow, the rain did not come until after I'd already had a chance to participate in my favorite spring training activity. When we're attending games in Clearwater, which is the case for both our games this year, Dad and I always go over right and get in as soon as the gates open. I've taken to going down and standing in the first row just to the right of the backstop, camera in hand, and watching batting practice. It's incredibly awesome to be down right next to some of my favorite players, and I always come away with some nice pictures. This year was no exception.

No idea who the dude on the left is, but the guy on the right is 2006 NL MVP Ryan Howard

I love Shane Victorino, mainly because dude is basically my size and is a very good player

My favorite player, and my dog's namesake, 2B Chase Utley

Jayson Stark, who covers the Phillies for ESPN (Leave it to me to take a picture of the sportswriter)

And So I Ask - On Location

Greetings from Clearwater, Florida, and welcome to this blog's first ever remote!

I'm here to "cover" Phillies Spring Training for the next 2 days. Okay, to be fair, my motives for being here are something less than professional, but I will do my best to let you into what I'm experiencing while I take in a couple of exhibition games with my dad.

Our trip was highly uneventful, up until the point where we arrived in the Tampa airport. Our efforts to get from our plane to the hotel were highlighted by a jammed baggage belt, me leaving one of my bags on the shuttle from the terminal to the rental car place and not realizing it for a couple minutes (thankfully the driver had left the bag behind anyhow), and the Garmin repeatedly trying to send us down roads that were under construction as we tried to get out of the airport.

But we're here safe and sound none the less.

The primary purpose of this entry, however, is for me to post this, which I'm sure will inspire some combination of hatred/envy from my Northeast/Midwest readership.

I'll check back in tomorrow, well, actually, just later today. Must sleep...

God Save the Fan

When I finished my last book, I was not necessarily sure what book I wanted to read next. None of the books I had at my immediate disposal really captured my attention. I thought I was going to read another college football/basketball book, but then I stumbled upon a little piece about God Save the Fan, a book by Will Leitch, the editor of the popular Deadspin sports blog, in that week's Sports Illustrated. I was familiar with Deadspin, but didn't really read it that often. I knew enough to know that the blog put a very humorous, satirical slant on sports, and I was interested in the premise of the book, so I picked it up.

I was not disappointed. This was easily the best book I've read so far in terms of pure entertainment value. Leitch is extremely witty, irreverant, and exceptionally insightful. He takes to task all the various forces that he believes have taken the fun out of sports for fans, and that's pretty much everyone - players, owners, and the media, and then proceeds to instruct us fans as to how he believes we can take our sports back. One thing I realized from reading the book is that, in my own writings, I was often trying to make a polished, safe take, and not really letting my own voice and opinions carry through. Not always the case of course, but I had a run of entries like that, and I'm trying to get back to them.

Of course, with someone so opiniated, I didn't even come close to agreeing with everything he said, but still he struck me as highly perceptive, and I really enjoyed his barbs against the mainstream media (Surprised, aren't you?) The thing that impressed me the most (and was most unexpected by the time I got to it) was his discussion on athletes that talk about God. Leitch is clearly not coming from a Christian perspective, and given his general level of irreverence, when I saw the title for that chapter, I stopped my reading for that day, simply because I expected he was going to upset me, and I wanted to come into it fresh. Couldn't have been more wrong. His treatment of that was one of the better ones I've seen, noticing the clear distinction between those athletes who demonstrate a genuine faith in God, and those who just throw out those words. He also grasped very well the understanding that just because an athlete believes that God was with him out there on the field, doesn't mean that he thinks God was ONLY with him. Very well done, very impressed, as I was with the book as a whole.

It's baseball time, so I will next pick one of the baseball books off my stack. In honor of my coming trip to Phillies spring training, I'll be reading Clearing the Bases, by Phillie legend and the greatest third baseman to play the game, Mike Schmidt.

Follow up

Just to follow up on last night's post, it appears that Messiah will host their NCAA women's basketball sectional this weekend.

It figures. Usually, my Dad and I take our spring training trip the last weekend the team is in Florida, which this year would be the weekend of the 22nd. But, Easter is that weekend, as I mentioned before, hence we are going this weekend.

Silly Easter and its fickle jumping around the calendar! *hides from potential lightning strike* Hopefully I will be able to find time to listen to the games via Messiah's radio webcast. I love the internet!

How Sweet it is! Lady Falcons advance!

I have to admit, I was feeling it at halftime. By it, I mean, that eerie feeling that I'd seen this play out before, and not in a good way. Here it was, the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament, and Messiah was in a real scrap with a team that I really felt they should be beating. Messiah was missing free throws, St. Lawrence was having some prayers being answered with their shots, and there was a steady rain of St. Lawrence threes going in, the last one being a rainbow from about 4 feet behind the arc that made it only a slim one point Messiah lead going into intermission, at 30-29.

Honestly, I think the Messiah players, especially the seniors, were gripping a little bit too for a lot of the game. It seemed like the failures on the home court in the 2nd round the last two years might have been there in the back of their mind. I sat there at half, hoping that what I thought I was seeing was accurate, and that Messiah's intense defensive pressure, coupled with their superior depth and the fact that St. Lawrence had been required to go the distance in their game last night, would wear the Saints down in the 2nd half.

Well, I think that happened to a degree, but there were a few other significant factors that led to the Falcons pulling away and winding up with their 64-49 victory. Perhaps the most significant was Messiah's halftime defensive adjustment. St. Lawrence's Jamie Wolff had scored 18 of St. Lawrence's 29 points, and was the culprit in St. Lawrence's 3 point barrage, hitting 4 of them in the first half. Coming out in the 2nd half, Messiah had shifted All-American Nikki Lobach over to defend her. Lobach spent most of the second half in Wolff's shorts (figuratively of course, I'm sure the NCAA would frown on the literal act), holding her scoreless. Wolff didn't even attempt a three until there were about 2 minutes to go, and let's just say, she wasn't open.

The second factor was that Messiah was able to launch their own barrage of 3s. Sharpshooter Lauren Schurr, who was 0-3 from beyond the arc in the first half, was 4-4 in the second half, and with Amy Reed tossing in a 3 of her own, was instrumental in the Messiah run that broke the game open a few minutes into the second half. Messiah was uncharacteristically poor from the free throw line, or they probably would have put the game out of reach pretty early.

The real story of the game, however, was junior center Sal Shani's coming out party. Sal has perhaps the most interesting story on the Messiah roster. My understanding (I'm not really much of an insider), is that Sal, who came to Messiah via Senegal, had not really played organized basketball prior to her time at Messiah. She was on the team as a freshman and sophomore, but saw very limited minutes as she really learned the game, despite her incredible abilities. You see, Sal is 6' 2", which usually means she is the tallest player on the court. In addition, she is generally the most athletic player on the court, and about as fast as anyone else. Had she been playing basketball for most of her life, she probably would be a D-I type talent. Even this year, her minutes have still been relatively limited in favor of the more experienced players who know how to run the offense better, and yet she's still wound up as the team's second leading scorer, and was recognized as a 1st team All-Conference performer despite only playing about 18 minutes a game, 7th on the team in that department.

Shani was just dominant inside tonight, playing 26 minutes while putting up a career-high 24 points, a career high 10 rebounds, and 3 blocked shots to go along with it. St. Lawrence just had no answer for her inside. In my opinion, Sal is the X-factor in Messiah's chances for a deep tournament run, and even a national title. Messiah already has a dominant presence on the perimeter in Lobach. If they are able to finally let Sal loose, and she can produce, their offense is going to be very difficult to stop, and that coupled with their ever present intense defense is going to be a potent combination. Making a deep run is quite often about having someone step up that you don't necessarily expect, much as was the case during Messiah's run in 2001, when Melissa Ehst, a 3 point specialist off the bench who was averaging about 6 points a game through the season, caught fire from outside and averaged 20+ from the second round to the Final Four. Here's hoping Sal can serve a similar role for the 2008 Falcons.

So, the bottom line is that the Lady Falcons are on to the Sweet 16. I'm so pumped, especially for the seniors, who finally got through that 2nd round wall, and have a chance to extend their record for most wins by a class at Messiah. Given their high seeding, it is possible that they will host next week's sectional. Unfortunately, even if that happens, this will be my last "in person" game report, as I will be in Florida next weekend for my annual trip to Phillies spring training with my Dad. If they advance to the Final Four, that's in Michigan, which would probably be enough by itself to prevent my presence, but when you add in the fact that it is over Easter weekend, there's just no way I can consider making the trip.

Once again, go Falcons!

1 down, 5 to go!

I love D-III March Madness, even women's March Madness.

The Lady Falcons advanced to tomorrow's second round NCAA tournament game against St. Lawrence, defeating Cabrini by a score of 63-34, in a game that wasn't as close as the score indicated.

Looking at the game on paper, based on things like results against common opponents, strength of schedule, etc, the game definitely looked like a mismatch in favor of Messiah. However, in the NCAAs, you generally play teams you know nothing about, and in a win or go home format, you never want to take any opponent for granted, even as a fan, so I wasn't exactly feeling totally comfortable at tip off time. Most of the lingering doubts I had were erased after Cabrini's first 2 or 3 possessions, when it became abundantly clear that they were going to be hard pressed to score 40 points against Messiah's aggressive man to man defense. It was evident from the get go that Messiah had a clear advantage in athleticism at pretty much every position, so even though Cabrini started out with some pretty good defense of their own, you knew it was just going to be a matter of time before Messiah pulled away. And sure enough, led by that stifling defense and a very balanced offensive attack, the Falcons pulled out to a 40-14 halftime lead, holding Cabrini to 28% shooting, while shooting over 50% from the floor themselves. The second half was predictably uneventful, as Messiah took their foot off the gas pretty early, and cruised to the final 29 point margin.

It was really a perfect scenario for the first of back to back games. Messiah was able to use their considerable depth, with no player playing over 24 minutes, and 11 players who played at least 11. The ladies should have plenty left in the tank for tomorrow night's game, particularly when contrasted with St. Lawrence, who only played 8 players and had 4 players go over 30 minutes, including two who played the whole game, in defeating William Patterson by a score of 64-57. Unfortunately, I can't give much more of a scouting report on St. Lawrence, as I was only in the gym for about the last minute of the first game.

The second round of the tournament has tripped Messiah up each of the last two seasons, so it seems quite likely that tomorrow will be a battle as well. I'm really pulling for this team (not that I haven't really pulled for every Messiah team), because in my mind they are clearly the best team Messiah has ever fielded, and yes, that includes the team that was the national runner up in 2001, back when I was but a junior in college. That team was a good team, but really just got hot at the right time. The current Messiah bunch, led by All-American Nikki Lobach, has considerably better athletes across the board, and unbelievable depth. It's difficult to really know anything about what lies ahead in the tournament given the regional nature of D-III basketball, but from my limited perspective, it seems like the bracket sets up very well for the Lady Falcons, if they can break through their 2nd round wall. Hopefully Messiah's experience (4 senior starters, 3 of which are basically 3 year starters) will finally carry the day and avoid another 2nd round exit in front of the home crowd.

Go Falcons!

Favre's Decision: Fighting through the B.S.

Say, did you by any chance hear the news? Brett Favre retired yesterday. I was just checking, because I'm not sure if it's really gotten enough coverage yet. I'm sure there are plenty of people still unaware. For instance, someone who might be in a mountain cave somewhere in the Andes, with their head down in their lap and their fingers in their ears.

That little bit of opening sarcasm aside, I'm actually quite pleased about this development. That pleasure comes not from any feelings about Favre's decision itself. Rather, I'm pumped, because it's been a little while since I really tore into the media about something, and if I go more than a few days without doing that, I begin to question my reason for being. Now, the reality is that there is generally something that I run across in the media that bugs me everyday, but I try to keep most of that stuff out of this blog, for fear of being revealed as the petty, condescending, self-righteous jerk that I am.

As I often do, let me state something clearly upfront - I like Brett Favre. The guy is a clear first ballot Hall of Fame quarterback, and as athletes go, an rather compelling personality on top of that. I do not share the kind of torrid man-crush for Favre that much of the media, led by the increasingly senile and erratic John Madden, clearly has, but I appreciate his talent and have a great deal of respect for him. I'm about to rant about a variety of issues regarding reaction to his retirement, but that says nothing of my attitude towards him.

The first thing I have to react to is the sheer volume of coverage that we've been subjected to over the last 24-36 hours. Now, this is not to equate Favre's retirement with an overblown non-story. Given Favre's status, his retirement clearly merits a significant amount of attention. It was unquestionably the story of the day yesterday, certainly the story of the week, and very likely the story of the year thus far. It is not, however, the story of the century, or of the millennium, or of all time. As one caller to the Jim Rome show suggested today, you might think that Favre was murdered or suffered a similarly tragic death, given the all-Favre, all the time coverage. Just because one story is clearly the most important doesn't make it a cardinal sin to mention others. Now, I've had similar rants before, so I certainly expected this. We all know that the media tends to pump up stories that aren't actual stories, and to beat us across the head with the real stories until we're bloodied, bruised and broken. So, while it bears mentioning, the sheer volume of the coverage isn't my primary concern, and I probably would have found something else to write about tonight if that was the only thing going on.

More frustrating, however, is the media's obsession with unearthing Favre's "real" motives for retiring. To date, Favre's explanation has been that he's just mentally tired and not willing or interested in starting it all up again and putting himself through training camp, weekly preparation, and the like for another season. He's also mentioned that, given the success of this year's team, it would be difficult for next year to be anything but a disappointment. The media, led by the timing of his announcement and some statements made by his agent and brother, have pushing one of two alternate reason for Favre's decision. The first one suggests that Favre was irked by the team's refusal, for the second year in a row, to pursue wide receiver Randy Moss. Most people espousing this idea soften it to some degree by suggesting that Favre didn't quit just because of that, but that if Moss had gone to Green Bay, Favre probably would have found the willingness to continue playing. This is, of course, a pointless hypothetical, since there's no way that Moss would have come to Green Bay short of receiving assurances that Favre would continue to play. The second theory is that Favre did want to return for another season, but that Green Bay was cool to the idea of his return, wanting to instead hand the ball over to his successor, Aaron Rodgers.

As I've paid more close attention to the media in recent months, one of the major lessons I've learned is that if you want the sports media on your case, the best thing to do is to make a decision that goes against the prevailing media opinion of what you will do. I'm going to let you in on a little secret: Sportswriters and other media figures, in general, aren't really more intelligent or more sports savvy than you and I are, nor do most of them have any particular insight into how a given athlete is thinking. However, they prefer to keep that little bit of information as quiet as they possibly can. So, when they completely misread an athlete's intentions, as most of the media did in Favre's case, they have to find a reason for it that goes beyond "I was just wrong." If Favre wanted to come back but was in someway put off by the team, they can let themselves off the hook, which I suppose works out well for them.

Here's the problem with that, specifically as it relates to this case. First of all, if there's an athlete who has earned the right to be taken at his word, in absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, it's Brett Favre. Secondly, if there's an athlete who has earned the right to leave his sport on his own terms, regardless of the particulars of those terms, it's Brett Favre. Thirdly, and most importantly, who in the hell cares WHY Brett Favre retired? Aside from the nation of Packers fans who might be a bit pissed to know that their team showed their hero the door, does the story really change for anyone if Favre was willing to play another year, but walked away due to other circumstances? From my perspective, it doesn't, and I have a hard time believing the average fan feels much differently. The calls I heard to sports radio today seem to agree with me. While many people had an opinion, very few people seemed to have any genuine concern as to whether their opinions were true or not.

Lastly, I'm appalled at articles I've seen like this one, in which Jeffri Chadiha proclaims without hesitation that Favre made a huge mistake by stepping away now, and that he will regret it this fall. You know what, he may be right. In fact, I have little doubt that Favre will miss the games themselves. Favre's made it clear for a while that were it just about deciding to play the games, he'd play until he physically couldn't do it anymore. However, I find it ridiculously arrogant for a writer like this (who, by the way, has never been through an NFL season as a player, and thus has zero concept of what Favre would be signing up for) to suggest that he knows better than Favre himself what Favre should have done. I mean, seriously, are you kidding me? Now, I understand it's an easy trap to fall into. We as fans, and even the media to a large extent, saw Favre on gameday this past season playing at a high level, and having a blast doing it. As people who would kill for a chance to play sports for a living, we can sit back and say "Why the heck would you give that up before you have to?" However, we only see the glamour of the games, we don't see the trainer's room, and the grind of camp, and the weeks between games - things that Favre has been subjecting himself to week in and week out for the last 17 seasons, without missing a single start. No one knows better than Favre whether he is up to doing that for another season. And furthermore, people talk about this as if it's a foregone conclusion that the Packers will be contenders again next year. Yes, they had the youngest team in the league this year, but so much changes in the NFL from year to year these days, because there are some many variables. To put things in perspective, it's been 3 years since the losing team in the NFC championship even made the playoffs the following year, and the losing team in the NFC title game has only gone to the Super Bowl the following year once in the last decade. So, while on paper it seems like a safe bet for the team to be able to repeat or improve on this year's success, the reality is that the odds aren't as favorable as you might think.

To say "I wish he would keep playing" or "I think he could keep playing successfully" or even "I think he'll end up wishing he had kept playing" is one thing. To proclaim the decision a colossal mistake within hours of it becoming public, without allowing the slightest possibility that Favre might know what is best for him is just absurd. And yet, this is just the most prominent example, from a guy who in all likelihood wouldn't have hesitated to question Favre's decision to return if he had done so and he and/or the team had struggled next year.

In defense of player "greed"

Okay, I'm about to do something that violates the standard code of conduct for fans. I'm going to side with a couple of "greedy" players in their gripes with ownership. The players in question here are Cole Hamels of the Philadelphia Phillies, and Prince Fielder of the Milwaukee Brewers. Both players have publicly expressed displeasure at their team's decision to renew their contracts for the 2008 season at an amount significantly lower than they had hoped for.

Now, an important piece of background here is that, as players with less than 3 years of major league service time, neither Hamels nor Fielder have any actual leverage negotiating their contract. There is a negotiating process that typically goes on with such players, but the bottom line is that if an agreement can't be reached, the team can renew their contract at any amount (as long as it is at least the league minimum, and not more than 20% less than the player made the previous season), and there's nothing a player can do about it. So, by the rules, neither player is even close to being "entitled" to any particular amount of money. At this stage of their careers, ownership holds all the cards, and that's not going to change. These rules are why most players with under 3 years of service time wind up making a figure that isn't too much more than the league minimum.

Hamels and Fielder, however, are not "most" players. Fielder finished 3rd in the NL MVP voting last year, after a season in which he became the youngest player ever to hit at least 50 HRs. Hamels established himself as the clear ace of the Phillies pitching staff, going 15-5 and earning an All-Star bid. He also finished 6th in the NL Cy Young voting, despite an injury that cost him about 4 starts. Clearly, Hamels and Fielder are special talents, and not your "run of the mill" young players.

Hamels was renewed at 500,000, having requested 750,000. Fielder's request is unclear, at least as far as I can tell, but he's expressed dissatisfaction with his renewal amount of 670,000, which leads me to believe he was looking for something in the neighborhood of, or higher than, the contract that 2006 NL MVP Ryan Howard was given for last season, of 900,000. While neither player has suggested that these moves would be a reason for them to not return when they hit free agency, both have made it clear that they felt disrespected by the renewals, and will remember such things going forward.

While again keeping in mind that, as I said, neither player is entitled to anything by baseball's contract rules, it's also important to understand that the two players are undoubtedly among the best players on their respective teams, and presumably both teams would like to keep them around for a number of years. From that perspective, it seems to me like an exceedingly poor play to risk alienate your best talent over the matter of a couple hundred thousand dollars, especially when you consider that even at their full asking price, both players would be a ridiculous bargain relative to what more veteran players of similar talent would command.

Ownership would try to sell you some line about "If we give them X amount of dollars, that impacts what we have to give the next guy". But from my perspective, that just doesn't fly. You aren't going to have a legitimate MVP or Cy Young candidate in this position all that often, so it's hardly a damaging precedent to set. And again, all the leverage is in the hands of the owners, so it's not a case where lesser players will be able to force their hand if they were to reward their young stars better. This sort of line rings especially hollow coming from the Phillies, who just last year gave Ryan Howard the biggest contract every for a player with less than 2 full years of service time. That contract, by the way, is almost double what Hamels was given for this year.

The reality is that both of these teams are going to likely be sitting down with the players in question in the near future to negotiate highly lucrative long term contracts. Lingering resentment over these sorts of things could easily lead either player to take a much tougher line when that time comes, so scrimping on a matter of a few hundred thousand now could contribute to the loss of millions later, or even losing the talented player altogether. I think both teams would have done much better to have acted in better faith in these negotiations, in hopes of seeing something like that reciprocated down the road.

I will say this much for Milwaukee, however: Fielder's agent is Scott Boras, and I'm not sure "good faith" is in his vocabulary. Regardless, I say give them what they want in this instance. At some point down the road, I'll elaborate on why I'm much closer to being "pro-player" on contract matters than average fan, but in this case, I think it's clearly in the best interests of both sides that ownership not play hardball with contracts.