Both the San Francisco 49ers and the Oakland Raiders have been laughingstocks over the past seven seasons, since the Raiders and 49ers last made the playoffs. Poor drafts for both teams contributed to the demise of these once-proud franchises. For every Patrick Willis the 49ers picked, they drafted first-round busts like Rashaun Woods. The Raiders have received even less production from their top draft picks. Their past six first-round picks (Darrius Heyward-Bey, Darren McFadden, JaMarcus Russell, Michael Huff, Fabian Washington, and Robert Gallery) have not lived up to expectations for the Silver and Black.
However, the tide appears to have turned in the 2010 NFL Draft, as both Bay Area franchises significantly improved their rosters with effective drafts. First, the San Francisco 49ers needed to address their offensive line issues immediately. They were dismal in both run-blocking and pass-protection. Frank Gore and other 49er running backs had almost no running lanes throughout the year, which contributed largely to the off-year for Frank Gore. Although Gore rushed for a modest 1120 yards, he could only muster five 100-yard rushing games for the team, he rushed for under 100 yards in eight of his 14 games and could never achieve sustained excellence throughout the season.
Gore’s struggles could also point to the fact that the 49ers became a pass-happy team in the second half of the season. The team abandoned the ineffective rushing game often during the season, as Gore had 8 games in which he had 16 or fewer rushing attempts. This led to the offensive line allowed over 50 sacks in each of the past two seasons, with a league-leading 55 in 2008. This style of play is not favored by Mike Singletary, who believes in an offense with a power running game. To do that, he needed to beef up the offensive line. That’s why the 49ers drafted right tackle Anthony Davis and guard Mike Iupati with their two first-round picks.
Both of these linemen play with a mean streak, which is favored by Singletary. Davis is a very physically polished tackle, who has tremendous upside. He has long arms, which will definitely help him in pass protection, though he needs work in run-blocking. Iupati is a very big and physical player, two exceptional traits for a guard. He loves to knock people over and will definitely help in all aspects of blocking. Both players provide a significant upgrade over the ineffective Adam Snyder and Tony Wragge, both of whom struggled mightily last season. With Staley on the left side and Davis on the right, the 49ers have solidified their tackle position for the next several years. Continuity on the offensive line leads to championships. Just ask the 2006-2008 New York Giants, who possessed an offensive line that played 48 straight games together.
In the next two rounds, the 49ers received two potential defensive stalwarts, who fell due to various reasons. They selected safety Taylor Mays, a physical specimen with elite speed and size. He loves physical play and can develop into a potential star under Singletary’s tutelage. In the third round, the 49ers picked up OLB Navarro Bowman, who has first-round talent with tremendous natural instincts and great physical skills. If he can clean up his off-the-field issues, Bowman can form a lethal duo with Patrick Willis at linebacker.
The Raiders equally had an impressive draft. After ranking 26th in total defense and 29th in run defense, the Raiders needed a difference-maker on defense. They found one in MLB Rolando McClain, who provides instant leadership, credibility, and play-making skills to the Raider defense. McClain is one of the smartest football players in this year’s draft and his presence provides a major upgrade over the departed Kirk Morrison. Then, they drafted DT LaMarr Houston with their second-round pick, whose quickness will help the defensive line. DT’s Gerard Warren and Gerard Joseph were ineffective last year, so Houston will provide a boost to the unit.
Offensively, the Raiders had trouble protecting the quarterback, similar to the 49ers. Their tackles allowed opposing pass-rushers to pressure the quarterback far too frequently. The Raiders upgraded this unit significantly by acquiring two solid mid-round prospects in tackles Edwin Veldheer and Bruce Campbell. Both men are physical stalwarts with tremendous upside, as Veldheer possesses a 6-foot 8-inch frame with long arms. Campbell, on the other hand, ran an unprecedented 4.84 40-yard dash at the combine and 34 reps on the 225-pound bench press. Both tackles, with seasoned training, have the potential to turn into upper-echelon tackles.
Though this draft, both the 49ers and Raiders put themselves in position to contend for their winnable division titles. San Francisco, with better offensive line play, has the pieces to put plenty of points on the board, which will significantly ease the pressure on the highly ranked defense. With Kurt Warner out in Arizona and rebuilding years in Seattle and St. Louis, the 49ers should be the favorite to win the NFC West. As for the Raiders, they should have an improved defense as a whole with the additions of McClain and Houston. If their run defense improves, they will have a chance to post a .500 record, something they haven’t achieved since 2002. All this new hope is created from the impressive drafts done by these two franchises.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
What’s up with Koreans Playing Well with Tiger Woods?
First, it was Y.E. Yang at the 2009 PGA Championship. Then, K.J. Choi just outplayed Tiger Woods at the 2010 Masters. Both Korean men went against the norm and simply outplayed Woods during their pairings at these past two major championships. It’s something that rarely happens. Just look at guys like Aaron Baddeley, Sergio Garcia, Alex Cejka, and a number of others, who have all performed miserably in past final-round pairings with Tiger Woods.
However, Y.E. Yang of South Korea changed everything in the 2009 PGA Championship. Prior to this tournament, Woods had been 14-of 14 when holding at least a share of the lead heading into the final round of a major. Woods led Yang by two shots, with several others lurking, heading into the final round of the 2009 PGA Championship, and it seemed almost inevitable that this would be another victory lap. After all, Yang had only won one PGA Tour tournament, though he did outlast Woods to win the 2006 HSBC Champions Tournament.
Still, this was Tiger Woods, arguably the most intimidating, respected athlete the world has ever seen. Woods was indestructible. He was on a mission to catch Nicklaus’s record of 18 major championships, which he trailed by four. The 2009 PGA Tournament was Woods’s to lose, as there was no real threat to catch him. However, everything changed in this one unforgettable round.
From the opening tee shot, Yang showed much more composure than Woods, as he consistently drove the ball into the fairway. Woods, on the other hand, could not find his swing, as his shots landed all over the place. Thus, Woods faltered back to 6-under through nine holes and shared the lead with Yang heading into the back nine.
Then, with both players tied through 13 holes, the tide finally turned in the 14th hole, a drivable par 4. Both players reached the front edge of the green on the tee shot. From the fringe, Yang was able to sink in a 75-foot chip shot for an eagle and an outright lead. Woods followed up Yang’s heroics with a birdie of his own, but he relinquished his precious lead. With Yang up one heading to the final hole, the Korean hit one of the greatest approach shots in major championship history, as his 220 yard shot landed within nine feet of the hole. He went on to sink the putt and win the championship by three shots, with Woods bogeying that hole.
A similar performance occurred also at the 2010 Masters, as Woods was clearly outplayed by fellow partner K.J. Choi, as these two were paired together for four straight days. Although both men shot the exact same scores, Choi clearly had the far better week and had a much greater chance at winning the tournament than Woods, especially in the final day. During the final round, Choi hit each of his first 13 possible fairways, while Woods drove the ball all over the place. In fact, at one point in the final round, Choi held a share of the lead on the back nine, before faltering down the stretch.
Nonetheless, Choi played exceptionally well, despite playing through all of the distractions presented by Woods’ off-course issues. He maintained his composure through the entire tournament, as Woods was the one who was rattled with all of the commotion.
Thus, both Korean men held their own and played the best golf of their careers alongside Tiger Woods. Neither Korean golfer was intimidated by Woods, as they played very fundamentally sound golf. They did not take any unnecessary chances and used a more conservative approach to frustrate Woods and execute their game plan. In the future, other golfers should clearly replicate these Koreans’ approach to the game when they are partnered with Woods.
However, Y.E. Yang of South Korea changed everything in the 2009 PGA Championship. Prior to this tournament, Woods had been 14-of 14 when holding at least a share of the lead heading into the final round of a major. Woods led Yang by two shots, with several others lurking, heading into the final round of the 2009 PGA Championship, and it seemed almost inevitable that this would be another victory lap. After all, Yang had only won one PGA Tour tournament, though he did outlast Woods to win the 2006 HSBC Champions Tournament.
Still, this was Tiger Woods, arguably the most intimidating, respected athlete the world has ever seen. Woods was indestructible. He was on a mission to catch Nicklaus’s record of 18 major championships, which he trailed by four. The 2009 PGA Tournament was Woods’s to lose, as there was no real threat to catch him. However, everything changed in this one unforgettable round.
From the opening tee shot, Yang showed much more composure than Woods, as he consistently drove the ball into the fairway. Woods, on the other hand, could not find his swing, as his shots landed all over the place. Thus, Woods faltered back to 6-under through nine holes and shared the lead with Yang heading into the back nine.
Then, with both players tied through 13 holes, the tide finally turned in the 14th hole, a drivable par 4. Both players reached the front edge of the green on the tee shot. From the fringe, Yang was able to sink in a 75-foot chip shot for an eagle and an outright lead. Woods followed up Yang’s heroics with a birdie of his own, but he relinquished his precious lead. With Yang up one heading to the final hole, the Korean hit one of the greatest approach shots in major championship history, as his 220 yard shot landed within nine feet of the hole. He went on to sink the putt and win the championship by three shots, with Woods bogeying that hole.
A similar performance occurred also at the 2010 Masters, as Woods was clearly outplayed by fellow partner K.J. Choi, as these two were paired together for four straight days. Although both men shot the exact same scores, Choi clearly had the far better week and had a much greater chance at winning the tournament than Woods, especially in the final day. During the final round, Choi hit each of his first 13 possible fairways, while Woods drove the ball all over the place. In fact, at one point in the final round, Choi held a share of the lead on the back nine, before faltering down the stretch.
Nonetheless, Choi played exceptionally well, despite playing through all of the distractions presented by Woods’ off-course issues. He maintained his composure through the entire tournament, as Woods was the one who was rattled with all of the commotion.
Thus, both Korean men held their own and played the best golf of their careers alongside Tiger Woods. Neither Korean golfer was intimidated by Woods, as they played very fundamentally sound golf. They did not take any unnecessary chances and used a more conservative approach to frustrate Woods and execute their game plan. In the future, other golfers should clearly replicate these Koreans’ approach to the game when they are partnered with Woods.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
NCAA Should Not Expand Tournament to 96 Teams
Every year, the NCAA Tournament is arguably the greatest three weeks of the year. Cinderella schools like George Mason and Davidson can finally showcase their talents in front of a national audience. Buzzer beaters and upsets happen on a consistent basis. Heck, since each of the 64 games played in the tournament is based off a single elimination basis, emotions run extremely high while heartbeats soar to an all-time level. With the current success of this format, why would the NCAA even think about expanding the tournament to 96 teams?
This new suggestion seems like one of the most ludicrous ideas ever created. Multiple problems will happen with a drastic expansion. First and most importantly, what exactly would the regular season mean? Each year, teams play approximately 33-35 regular season games to fight for a position or spot in the NCAA Tournament. Since there are only 31 at-large bids available out of 347 Division I schools, only teams with the strongest resumes can have a shot at entering the tournament without winning their conference tournament.
Expanding the tournament would therefore mean that perennial contenders Connecticut, North Carolina, Arizona, and UCLA, who all had abysmal 2010 seasons, would have had a legitimate shot at making this season's NCAA Tournament. Each of these teams had at least 15 losses, with UCLA even having a losing record. To have these teams then make it to the tournament this season due to their high reputation would have been an absolute embarrassment to college basketball.
Furthermore, if 96 out of 347 schools made the NCAA Tournament, that would account for over 27 % of college basketball. Although that would significantly help teams from mid-major conferences receive an at-large bid into the tournament, this would definitely deteriorate the quality of play in the big dance. Each year, approximately ten or so teams have a legitimate shot at winning a title. Expanding the tournament would lessen the quality of play in the earlier rounds of the tournament, something that is in the most part non-existent today. With the current format, each round of the tournament generates tremendous suspense and intrigue. Upsets would not have the same meaning if the tournament were expanded. There would be no Bucknell over Kansas or Hampton over Iowa State shockers that seriously alter the college basketball landscape.
Another reason against the expansion would be the length of the tournament. Ten days of college basketball over a three week span is the perfect amount of allotted time for the tournament. Fans definitely have maintained a sustained interest during this three week period, as college basketball often concludes its season on an extremely high note. Lengthening the tournament would definitely change that. It would become like the NHL or NBA playoffs, two extremely prolonged events that definitely cause the fans to lose interest. Ratings for these two playoffs during the past decade were at an all-time low, and this was largely due to the two-month allotted period for the playoffs. People can only watch a continuous event for a certain amount of time before they begin to lose interest.
In summary, the NCAA would definitely take a substantial hit if it were to expand the tournament to 96 teams. The NCAA is only concerned about making money, but they must realize that maintaining a large fan support should be the primary goal. The NFL and MLB have the right playoff systems, as they are always usually short and compact. Fans can maintain a high level of interest during the NFL and MLB postseasons, since these only last barely a month. The NCAA should look to the MLB and NFL instead of the NHL and NBA when determining its postseason formats. Otherwise, college basketball will definitely lose a substantial amount of interest.
This new suggestion seems like one of the most ludicrous ideas ever created. Multiple problems will happen with a drastic expansion. First and most importantly, what exactly would the regular season mean? Each year, teams play approximately 33-35 regular season games to fight for a position or spot in the NCAA Tournament. Since there are only 31 at-large bids available out of 347 Division I schools, only teams with the strongest resumes can have a shot at entering the tournament without winning their conference tournament.
Expanding the tournament would therefore mean that perennial contenders Connecticut, North Carolina, Arizona, and UCLA, who all had abysmal 2010 seasons, would have had a legitimate shot at making this season's NCAA Tournament. Each of these teams had at least 15 losses, with UCLA even having a losing record. To have these teams then make it to the tournament this season due to their high reputation would have been an absolute embarrassment to college basketball.
Furthermore, if 96 out of 347 schools made the NCAA Tournament, that would account for over 27 % of college basketball. Although that would significantly help teams from mid-major conferences receive an at-large bid into the tournament, this would definitely deteriorate the quality of play in the big dance. Each year, approximately ten or so teams have a legitimate shot at winning a title. Expanding the tournament would lessen the quality of play in the earlier rounds of the tournament, something that is in the most part non-existent today. With the current format, each round of the tournament generates tremendous suspense and intrigue. Upsets would not have the same meaning if the tournament were expanded. There would be no Bucknell over Kansas or Hampton over Iowa State shockers that seriously alter the college basketball landscape.
Another reason against the expansion would be the length of the tournament. Ten days of college basketball over a three week span is the perfect amount of allotted time for the tournament. Fans definitely have maintained a sustained interest during this three week period, as college basketball often concludes its season on an extremely high note. Lengthening the tournament would definitely change that. It would become like the NHL or NBA playoffs, two extremely prolonged events that definitely cause the fans to lose interest. Ratings for these two playoffs during the past decade were at an all-time low, and this was largely due to the two-month allotted period for the playoffs. People can only watch a continuous event for a certain amount of time before they begin to lose interest.
In summary, the NCAA would definitely take a substantial hit if it were to expand the tournament to 96 teams. The NCAA is only concerned about making money, but they must realize that maintaining a large fan support should be the primary goal. The NFL and MLB have the right playoff systems, as they are always usually short and compact. Fans can maintain a high level of interest during the NFL and MLB postseasons, since these only last barely a month. The NCAA should look to the MLB and NFL instead of the NHL and NBA when determining its postseason formats. Otherwise, college basketball will definitely lose a substantial amount of interest.
Friday, April 2, 2010
2010 Season Preview: San Francisco Giants
The San Francisco Giants will look to build on their encouraging 2009 campaign, which resulted in an 88-74 record and their first winning season since 2004. For the first time in five seasons, the Giants actually remained in contention throughout the entire year in 2009, as it took an incredible run by the Colorado Rockies to edge the Giants for the wild card spot. Nonetheless, the team received multiple positives from last year.
First, pitchers Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum established themselves as one of the most lethal one-two punches in all of baseball. Lincecum won his second consecutive National League Cy Young Award, after posting a 15-7 record, a 2.48 ERA, and recording a NL-leading 261 strikeouts. Cain additionally pitched a phenomenal season, which earned him his first career all-star appearance. He posted a 14-8 record, a 2.89 ERA, and 171 strikeouts. Both players would have received many more wins had they not played in front of a dismal offense.
Another positive from last year was the resurgence of third baseman Pablo Sandoval, who led the team in batting average, home runs, on-base percentage, and RBI’s. With last season’s performance, Sandoval established himself as the heir apparent to Barry Bonds, as he finally brought back life to an otherwise atrocious Giants offense.
Speaking of the Giants offense, the batting was clearly the biggest lowlight of the 2009 season and was a significant factor in the team’s failure to reach the postseason. The Giants finished 26th in the MLB in offense, as no player other than Sandoval posted a .300 batting average. In addition, acquisitions Edgar Renteria, Freddy Sanchez, and Ryan Garko all had disappointing seasons, with Renteria batting a dismal .250. Furthermore, the team did a poor job of working counts, which resulted in several quick, unproductive innings.
Therefore, with all things considered, here are the five keys for the Giants in the upcoming season:
1. Back end of the Giants rotation – Outside of Lincecum and Cain, the Giants did not receive consistent contributions from the final three pitchers in the rotation. Barry Zito, although pitching his best season as a Giant, only recorded 10 wins and an unimpressive 4.03 ERA. Jonathan Sanchez, who pitched a perfect game last year, was demoted midseason and posted a 4.24 ERA. These two pitchers, along with Madison Bumgarner and Todd Wellemeyer, need to have consistent, productive seasons for the team to have any shot at reaching the postseason and to ease the pressure on Lincecum and Cain to perform.
2. Outfield Hitting – Last year’s opening day outfielders, Aaron Rowand, Fred Lewis, and Randy Winn, all had subpar seasons, which largely resulted in the inefficient Giants offense. With Lewis struggling mightily and Winn no longer with the team, Nate Schierholtz, Mark DeRosa, and Eugenio Velez need to have quality seasons to provide a lift to the Giants offense. Rowand had an encouraging spring training, while Velez and Schierholtz batted well towards the end of last season. All three players hope to carry the momentum into the 2010 season.
3. Middle Relief – For the large part, the Giants bullpen pitched extremely well last year. Brian Wilson had 38 saves, Jeremy Affedlt had 33 holds, and Sergio Romo had 41 strikeouts in 45 innings. However, other than those three pitchers, the Giants received inconsistent contributions from the rest of the bullpen, including Merkin Valdez, Justin Miller, and Bob Howry. The middle relief cost the Giants in last season’s heartbreaking, 14 inning loss to Colorado. Overall, though, this unit needs to remain strong, efficient, and consistent throughout this season.
4. Bruce Bochy – Although Bochy did record his first winning season as a Giants manager, he still made some controversial, dubious decisions that cost the team games. He played several aging, unproductive veterans over the younger players. He often pulled some of his starters and bullpen pitchers out too early. He sat some streaking players due to matchup problems. Bochy needs to make smarter decisions and trust the younger players for the Giants to perform at a high level.
5. Playing Well on the Road – While the Giants used their spacious ballpark effectively by posting a 52-29 home record, the Giants stumbled to a 36-45 record, which resulted in their absence from the postseason. The Giants finished four games back of the Rockies for the wild card spot, so if they had won a few more of those road games, they could have caught up to the Rockies. This season, the Giants will need to split on the road to increase their chances of reaching the postseason.
The Giants have the potential to make the postseason in 2010. If they continue to build on last year's winning season, they can do some serious damage this season.
First, pitchers Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum established themselves as one of the most lethal one-two punches in all of baseball. Lincecum won his second consecutive National League Cy Young Award, after posting a 15-7 record, a 2.48 ERA, and recording a NL-leading 261 strikeouts. Cain additionally pitched a phenomenal season, which earned him his first career all-star appearance. He posted a 14-8 record, a 2.89 ERA, and 171 strikeouts. Both players would have received many more wins had they not played in front of a dismal offense.
Another positive from last year was the resurgence of third baseman Pablo Sandoval, who led the team in batting average, home runs, on-base percentage, and RBI’s. With last season’s performance, Sandoval established himself as the heir apparent to Barry Bonds, as he finally brought back life to an otherwise atrocious Giants offense.
Speaking of the Giants offense, the batting was clearly the biggest lowlight of the 2009 season and was a significant factor in the team’s failure to reach the postseason. The Giants finished 26th in the MLB in offense, as no player other than Sandoval posted a .300 batting average. In addition, acquisitions Edgar Renteria, Freddy Sanchez, and Ryan Garko all had disappointing seasons, with Renteria batting a dismal .250. Furthermore, the team did a poor job of working counts, which resulted in several quick, unproductive innings.
Therefore, with all things considered, here are the five keys for the Giants in the upcoming season:
1. Back end of the Giants rotation – Outside of Lincecum and Cain, the Giants did not receive consistent contributions from the final three pitchers in the rotation. Barry Zito, although pitching his best season as a Giant, only recorded 10 wins and an unimpressive 4.03 ERA. Jonathan Sanchez, who pitched a perfect game last year, was demoted midseason and posted a 4.24 ERA. These two pitchers, along with Madison Bumgarner and Todd Wellemeyer, need to have consistent, productive seasons for the team to have any shot at reaching the postseason and to ease the pressure on Lincecum and Cain to perform.
2. Outfield Hitting – Last year’s opening day outfielders, Aaron Rowand, Fred Lewis, and Randy Winn, all had subpar seasons, which largely resulted in the inefficient Giants offense. With Lewis struggling mightily and Winn no longer with the team, Nate Schierholtz, Mark DeRosa, and Eugenio Velez need to have quality seasons to provide a lift to the Giants offense. Rowand had an encouraging spring training, while Velez and Schierholtz batted well towards the end of last season. All three players hope to carry the momentum into the 2010 season.
3. Middle Relief – For the large part, the Giants bullpen pitched extremely well last year. Brian Wilson had 38 saves, Jeremy Affedlt had 33 holds, and Sergio Romo had 41 strikeouts in 45 innings. However, other than those three pitchers, the Giants received inconsistent contributions from the rest of the bullpen, including Merkin Valdez, Justin Miller, and Bob Howry. The middle relief cost the Giants in last season’s heartbreaking, 14 inning loss to Colorado. Overall, though, this unit needs to remain strong, efficient, and consistent throughout this season.
4. Bruce Bochy – Although Bochy did record his first winning season as a Giants manager, he still made some controversial, dubious decisions that cost the team games. He played several aging, unproductive veterans over the younger players. He often pulled some of his starters and bullpen pitchers out too early. He sat some streaking players due to matchup problems. Bochy needs to make smarter decisions and trust the younger players for the Giants to perform at a high level.
5. Playing Well on the Road – While the Giants used their spacious ballpark effectively by posting a 52-29 home record, the Giants stumbled to a 36-45 record, which resulted in their absence from the postseason. The Giants finished four games back of the Rockies for the wild card spot, so if they had won a few more of those road games, they could have caught up to the Rockies. This season, the Giants will need to split on the road to increase their chances of reaching the postseason.
The Giants have the potential to make the postseason in 2010. If they continue to build on last year's winning season, they can do some serious damage this season.
Outside of WVU, the Big East Mightily Underachieved
The majority of the experts spread throughout the country largely believed and perceived the Big East Conference to be the premier conference in college basketball. After all, an unprecedented eight teams from the conference made the tournament, while nine different teams from the Big East were ranked at some point in time this year. Even Connecticut, who missed the tournament by a landslide, nearly cracked a top-15 ranking heading into 2010. Thus, with eight so-called “high-caliber” teams in the NCAA Tournament, the Big East was primed to have a monstrous tournament.
However, everything crumbled right from the first day of the tournament. Three out of the four teams in the conference playing on the first Thursday (Notre Dame, Marquette, and Georgetown) all lost, while the fourth, Villanova, needed overtime to defeat 15th seeded Robert Morris. First, after playing three outstanding games in the Big East Tournament, Notre Dame was playing its best basketball of the season heading into the first-round matchup against Old Dominion. However, they absolutely came out flat, as former All-American Luke Harangody only scored a paltry 4 points in Notre Dame’s 51-50 loss to Old Dominion.
Then, Marquette, after tremendous victories over Villanova and St. John’s in the Big East Tournament, finally discovered its identity as a team. Lazar Hayward, Darius Johnson-Odom, and Alex Acker were playing the best basketball of their careers, as Marquette was primed to take advantage of a favorable bracket. However, they too crumbled, blowing a double-digit lead in the 80-78 loss to Washington.
At least Marquette and Notre Dame lost to somewhat quality teams. The same cannot be said for Georgetown, who absolutely embarrassed themselves after receiving a 3 seed for their stellar performance in the Big East Tournament. The Hoyas were obliterated by the Ohio Bobcats , who had a losing record in the MAC Conference, 97-83. Before the tournament even started, Georgetown coach John Thompson III believed his team was playing the best basketball of the season. Well, he was proven completely wrong by the tournament.
Villanova displayed an equally poor effort in the tournament, after receiving a generous two seed. After receiving a number of favorable calls at the end of regulation, the Wildcats were able to squeak by Robert Morris 73-70 in the first round. However, their luck ran out in the second round, as Saint Mary’s, led by Omar Samhan, defeated the Wildcats 75-68.
The next day’s teams fared somewhat better, as three of the four teams opening on Friday advanced to the second round. However, with the exception of West Virginia, the other three teams clearly failed to meet their expectations. First, Louisville, who defeated top-ranked Syracuse twice during the regular season, played with no passion in a 77-62 first-round loss to California.
Second, Pittsburgh, who equally was given a generous 3 seed, was ousted by Xavier in the second round 71-68. The Panthers could only shoot 39% from the field and could not contain Xavier guard Jordan Crawford, who erupted for 28 points.
Finally, Syracuse, which was ranked number one for a good part of the season, came out flat in their Sweet Sixteen matchup against Butler. After two convincing performances in the first two rounds of the tournament against Vermont and Gonzaga, the Orangemen believed that they had a legitimate shot at capturing the National Championship. All those dreams were wiped away by the Butler Bulldogs, who ended the game on a 13-5 run to defeat Syracuse 63-59.
With these seven teams underachieving, several questions could be posed to the quality of the Big East Conference. Was the Big East clearly the most overrated conference in America? After the dismal performances in the tournament, why did the committee over-rank a number of these teams? How did eight teams from this conference make the tournament?
Each and every one of those questions is extremely valid, as the Big East embarrassed itself in the tournament. A strong case can be made about this being the most overrated conference in America, which was largely overhyped by the immense media markets in the east coast. When eight teams make a tournament, one must believe that these teams should be well-prepared for this event, especially considering that each team in the conference plays each other. Clearly, this was not the case, as several teams could not justify their high seed. Without West Virginia’s run to the Final Four, a strong case could be made that this was arguable the worst performance by a single conference in NCAA Tournament history.
However, everything crumbled right from the first day of the tournament. Three out of the four teams in the conference playing on the first Thursday (Notre Dame, Marquette, and Georgetown) all lost, while the fourth, Villanova, needed overtime to defeat 15th seeded Robert Morris. First, after playing three outstanding games in the Big East Tournament, Notre Dame was playing its best basketball of the season heading into the first-round matchup against Old Dominion. However, they absolutely came out flat, as former All-American Luke Harangody only scored a paltry 4 points in Notre Dame’s 51-50 loss to Old Dominion.
Then, Marquette, after tremendous victories over Villanova and St. John’s in the Big East Tournament, finally discovered its identity as a team. Lazar Hayward, Darius Johnson-Odom, and Alex Acker were playing the best basketball of their careers, as Marquette was primed to take advantage of a favorable bracket. However, they too crumbled, blowing a double-digit lead in the 80-78 loss to Washington.
At least Marquette and Notre Dame lost to somewhat quality teams. The same cannot be said for Georgetown, who absolutely embarrassed themselves after receiving a 3 seed for their stellar performance in the Big East Tournament. The Hoyas were obliterated by the Ohio Bobcats , who had a losing record in the MAC Conference, 97-83. Before the tournament even started, Georgetown coach John Thompson III believed his team was playing the best basketball of the season. Well, he was proven completely wrong by the tournament.
Villanova displayed an equally poor effort in the tournament, after receiving a generous two seed. After receiving a number of favorable calls at the end of regulation, the Wildcats were able to squeak by Robert Morris 73-70 in the first round. However, their luck ran out in the second round, as Saint Mary’s, led by Omar Samhan, defeated the Wildcats 75-68.
The next day’s teams fared somewhat better, as three of the four teams opening on Friday advanced to the second round. However, with the exception of West Virginia, the other three teams clearly failed to meet their expectations. First, Louisville, who defeated top-ranked Syracuse twice during the regular season, played with no passion in a 77-62 first-round loss to California.
Second, Pittsburgh, who equally was given a generous 3 seed, was ousted by Xavier in the second round 71-68. The Panthers could only shoot 39% from the field and could not contain Xavier guard Jordan Crawford, who erupted for 28 points.
Finally, Syracuse, which was ranked number one for a good part of the season, came out flat in their Sweet Sixteen matchup against Butler. After two convincing performances in the first two rounds of the tournament against Vermont and Gonzaga, the Orangemen believed that they had a legitimate shot at capturing the National Championship. All those dreams were wiped away by the Butler Bulldogs, who ended the game on a 13-5 run to defeat Syracuse 63-59.
With these seven teams underachieving, several questions could be posed to the quality of the Big East Conference. Was the Big East clearly the most overrated conference in America? After the dismal performances in the tournament, why did the committee over-rank a number of these teams? How did eight teams from this conference make the tournament?
Each and every one of those questions is extremely valid, as the Big East embarrassed itself in the tournament. A strong case can be made about this being the most overrated conference in America, which was largely overhyped by the immense media markets in the east coast. When eight teams make a tournament, one must believe that these teams should be well-prepared for this event, especially considering that each team in the conference plays each other. Clearly, this was not the case, as several teams could not justify their high seed. Without West Virginia’s run to the Final Four, a strong case could be made that this was arguable the worst performance by a single conference in NCAA Tournament history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)