| | Article from the ESPN bball page.
ESPN.com this past weekend, a headline read "Salukis shock Hokies."
Were you shocked by Southern Illinois' 69-64 victory? I wasn't.
Southern Illinois was in the NCAA Tournament last season out of a
very good league. Virginia Tech was not in the NCAA Tournament, and
despite playing some pretty good basketball, was not really even on the
fringe of the Tournament.
So how can it be a shock? The answer is: It can't. We have to stop
calling these games shocks or upsets or surprises. It was not a shock
to see Wichita State beat LSU, it was just a big road win. It may have
been a mild surprise, but it was hardly a shock. The same goes for
Gonzaga beating North Carolina. Were the Heels the favorites? Yes, but
it is insulting to good teams and to the game to keep calling these
games shocks and acting like these are earth-shaking upsets. It is not
a shock to see Butler beat Notre Dame, Indiana, Tennessee and Gonzaga.
It is a mild surprise, but not a shock.
Of course, we beat up Notre Dame for a "bad loss" after the Irish
lost to Butler in the first round of the NIT. How does Notre Dame's
loss to Butler look now? Before we go off and anoint Butler as the
eventual national champion, let's be clear. The Bulldogs have to
successfully navigate the Horizon League just the same way that the big
shots need to navigate their leagues. No team is allowed to rack up
some nonconference wins, and then lose to the middle or bottom teams of
its own league, unless that same courtesy is extended to everyone.
Let's assume that Butler does not win the Horizon League this year.
Butler's résumé likely will list Notre Dame, Indiana, Tennessee and
Gonzaga as "quality" wins. If that is indeed the case, everyone else
should have wins against those teams valued the same way. By the same
token, the most impressive win for Butler this week may just have been
its win over Kent State in double-overtime the day after the NIT final.
That was a really good win, and should be viewed as such.
Basketball is a different game than football. With the advent of
the 3-point shot, it is even harder for the better team to win with
great regularity. Basketball is the game of the upset, and the close
results should give you an indication of how hard it is to win in
today's game. Here are some of the reasons that some of the big shots
can no longer rip through their nonconference slates without a close
shave or a loss or two:
Youth vs. Experience: Most really good mid-majors have juniors and
seniors, and a couple of key players who are fifth-years after
transferring in or redshirting. The really good mid-majors have
experience -- and experience playing together -- and that provides an
important component to the equation. Most majors cannot keep their best
players for four years, let alone five. As freshmen and sophomores,
these players are subject to lapses, no matter how talented they are.
As I have said many times, I will take experience and talent over
superior talent every time. Many of these older players are smarter
because of the minutes they have played at that level, and that often
carries the day when talent is in the same ballpark.
3-point shooting: It has now been almost 20 years since the 3-point
shot has come into college basketball. For the most part, the inclusion
of the 3-pointer has been a good thing. However, not everything about
it has been good. Shooting percentages are down overall, and too many
players not qualified to take the shot are taking it. Players,
especially in practice and warming up, tend to gravitate toward that
line, often to the exclusion of other shots that may be more effective
for them.
The shot, however, has made David more capable of beating Goliath.
Twenty years ago, there were far fewer upsets, largely because you
could not spread out better and more athletic teams because of that
line. Missouri State shot twice as many 3s as Oklahoma State in their
meeting in South Padre Island, and created a chaotic atmosphere because
of it.
Officiating: Every year, there are points of emphasis. The
officials are mandated to watch certain things with greater vigilance
or emphasis. And, every year, this causes a ton of problems for players
and coaches. Of course, all you hear in response is that the players
and coaches need to adjust.
Really? If it is so simple and clear, why do there need to be
points of emphasis? How did such calls get so out of control that they
needed to be emphasized?
The truth is, the rules committee wants the game a certain way, and
the officials have no real say in it. Instead of letting the officials
use their judgment and call the game the way they have been doing it
for years, the committee issues these periodic mandates and that leads
to a lot of strange whistles that disrupt the flow and beauty of the
game.
Basketball is instinctive for the players and for the officials. It
also is physical. I trust our officials to draw the line at an unfair
advantage, not at some arbitrary line that cannot ever be enforced
uniformly. Basketball is the only game in which you can be disqualified
for making a mistake. That means that the way the game is called is
important, and I believe that the officials need to be allowed to use
their judgment.
Because it is still early, on several occasions this season, major
players have had trouble adjusting to the way the game is being called.
From what I have heard and seen, the interpretations of the rules and
points of emphasis seem to suggest that the stronger player will get
punished with foul calls for using his strength. I hope that this irons
itself out. In the meantime, there will be more upsets because of the
adjustment period.
Perception and fear of losing: Because of the way we look at majors
and mid-majors, the mids get to play to win without fear of losing.
There is really no downside to losing for a mid-major. For a major, a
loss to a mid-major follows the team around for the rest of the season,
and the players know it.
If a major loses to a mid-major, the team never hears the end of
it, no matter how good the mid-major is. At the end of a game, some
major players tend to tighten up because they are fearful of losing.
That is not an excuse; it is a fact. If there is really parity, which
so many people seem to suggest, why do we talk so much about upsets?
If certain mid-majors are so good, which several of them are, why
do we call it an upset when they beat a bottom-dweller in a big
conference? If certain mid-majors are so good, why don't they get beat
up when they lose? Until we treat all good teams the same way, and
value wins and losses through the same lens, we will perpetuate this
perception.
Jay Bilas, a college basketball analyst for ESPN, is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.
|
| | Posted 11/28/2006 2:47 PM - 4 Views - 0 eProps - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
