Random Thoughts on College Sports
or Just what Exactly Goes On in the Minds of NCAA Officials?
I’ve been staying away from the college topics because they seem to anger up the blood. All the dyed-in-the-wool alma mater get into irrational pissing matches that are entirely off topic. So I’ll do my best to stay objective and stay on topic. I want to bust through a handful of college hoops and gridiron topics that have been bugging me for a few weeks (months, years, depending on the topic).
HOOPS
Tyler Hansbrough
People might think that I’m writing the following paragraph because I’m a Duke fan, and therefore a Tarheel hater. Not true. I write this based on an objective observation of a substantial number of UNC games. Psycho-T has been a fairly dominant college player this year. He was the odds-on favorite to win the Naismith again this year. But he’s been outplayed this season by Hasheem Thabeet, who in turn has been outplayed by DeJuan Blair (especially head-to-head. More on this later). And none of those guys mentioned have put together the season that Blake Griffin has in the Frying Pan State. (What? That’s not Oklahoma’s actual nickname? Crazy.) Sure, Hansbrough’s still one of the best players in the college ranks this year, and a big reason why the ‘Heels are one of the favorites to win the title this year. But all this talk about Hansbrough’s upcoming (and outstanding) NBA career needs to be shelved. I can’t understand for the life of me why people honestly think Psycho-T is going to be a superstar at the next level. He’s a tweener. His size and skill set lands him squarely between a 3 and a 4 in the NBA. He’s too small to be a power forward, and too slow to be a small forward. Think about it. Can you envision Hansbrough battling night in and night out with the likes of Amare Stoudamire, Kevin Garnett, and Chris Bosh every night? Of course not. And there’s no way he’s stopping LeBron, ‘Melo, or Kevin Durant off the dribble. What does this mean for Psycho-T? He’ll get drafted (probably 15 spots too high), have a few good games and a bunch of crappy ones, be described by phrases like, “he should be much improved next season” countless times, then mire in mediocrity, playing limited minutes as a role player over a 12-15 year career. You watch.
Hasheem Thabeet & DeJuan Blair
Sure, it’s only one game. But that beatdown Pitt put on UConn a few weeks back was full of messages: overt, subliminal, and otherwise. Hasheem Thabeet was exposed. DeJuan Blair put himself back in water cooler roundball talk. First there’s Thabeet. Ok, the guy’s 7’3”. He’s a beast, and he blocks just about every shot that comes his way. So how did a 6’7”, Barkley-esque dude from Pitt get the best of him? Scratch that, DeJuan Blair didn’t just get the best of Hasheem Thabeet, he flat-out owned him. Just when everybody was ready to call Thabeet the most NBA-ready prospect in all of college ball, Blair (who had fallen off the radar because he has a reputation for taking plays off) had the game of all games, and left all of us scratching our heads. The towering center from Dar Es Salaam got taken to school by a guy who was giving up 8 inches. Thabeet never found his groove, scoring 5 points and mustering just 4 rebounds, while blocking a season-low 2 shots. Defensively, Blair had him off-balance and out of position, forcing him to commit four fouls. Meanwhile, Blair puts up 24 points to go with 23 rebounds. Seriously, a 20-20 against Hasheem Thabeet? That’s big time, folks, and you can bet Mr. Blair just got (re)noticed by a bunch of NBA execs. Even though he’s shorter than the prototypical power forward, he showed he was capable of taking it to guys bigger than he is. Kind of like Charles Barkley, who at a generous 6’6” (he admits he’s closer to 6’4”) was considered too small to be an NBA power forward coming out of college, but only went on to be one of the 50 greatest players of all time. I think Blair will be fine in the NBA.
(Note: I wrote this before UConn and Pitt played for the second time this season, a game in which Thabeet did moderately better (I say moderately because his stat line - 14 points, 13 rebounds – belies the fact that he scored exactly zero of those points in the second half), and Blair spent the majority of the game in foul trouble, finishing with a single-single (that should be a term to describe people like Blair and Dwight Howard, who almost never finish in single digits in either category, let alone both). However, Pitt did win again, becoming just the seventh team to beat the #1 team in the country twice in a season. This time it was Sam Young who did the dominating, dropping 31 on the Huskies. The Panthers have become my favorite to win the big dance.)
GRIDIRON
BCS Stands for…
Bullsh*t Championship Setup. Built-in Controversy Starter. Businesses Control Sports. Any of those better represent the spirit of the BCS acronym better than what the letters actually stand for: Bowl Championship Series. Since its inception in 1998 (in the wake of the wildly unsuccessful Bowl Alliance), the BCS has done little to clarify the national championship picture. Indeed, it has mostly muddied the waters, leading to a split title in 2003, and a yearly debate of who deserves to play in the national championship game.
Why can’t the NCAA just give it up and have a playoff? The arguments the NCAA uses to support the BCS are beyond ridiculous. Talking out of both sides of its mouth, the NCAA claims that a playoff in D-I would pull kids away from classes too much, but supports such a system for D-I AA, D-II, and D-III. There is also the notion that it would take away from the regular season if teams knew they would still get into the playoffs after a loss. How about the teams that have nothing left to play for after they’ve been mathematically eliminated from title contention in week 5? Has the unparalleled excitement generated by March Madness not been recognized by NCAA officials? Imagine what a crazy 2-3 week period of college football would mean, when a pool of 10-12 teams duke it out to decide who is crowned champion.
Message to the NCAA: Stop the charade and call the BCS what it really is – a system of making money hand-over-fist that hasn’t (totally) broken yet. Until it does, and the money dries up, there’s no way anybody involved is changing the BCS. Not the sponsors, not the conferences, and not the NCAA. Which is too bad for the players, especially those on teams on the outside looking in, like Utah and Texas last year, and Boise State in 2006.
Touchdown Celebrations
I’ve always thought that the dumbest flag in all of football, be it college or pro, was the ‘excessive celebration’ penalty. In my mind, excessive celebration is drinking too many shots on your birthday and spending the waning hours of the morning praying to the porcelain goddess. I like the sheer, unbridled joy that players used to exude when they scored an especially pivotal touchdown in a big game. Current rules mean those pivotal touchdowns are the very ones players err on the side of caution, lest their team lose critical yardage on the ensuing kickoff.
Look, I’m all for throwing the flag when a receiver catches a routine slant route over the middle for 3 yards and a first down, then gets up and makes a huge demonstration, especially when his team is getting slaughtered. (You’re on notice, Roy E. Williams!) Personally, I don’t think the refs penalize that enough. Anything other than a simple fist pump and high-fiving a teammate after a first down should be grounds for a flag, unless the following conditions are met: a) the gain on the play was 20 yards or more; b) there’s less than 2 minutes to go in a game separated by 6 points or less; or c) the catch itself was a thing of beauty (triple-teamed, tipped-and-bobbled, you get the idea). Same thing goes for any tackle that isn’t for at least a five-yard loss, unless it saves a touchdown, or it forces a turnover on downs or a punt in the last two minutes of a close game.
That said, I’m sick of flags flying in the end zone when somebody scores the go-ahead touchdown in a rivalry game. If you catch a 65-yard touchdown pass that gives you a 3-point lead over your biggest rival with a minute and a half left, you should have carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want in the end zone, within reason. The limitations: 1) no celebration can last more than 15 seconds; 2) no props of any kind can be used; and 3) other than your helmet, no other article of clothing can be removed.
Special deference to the scoreboard and clock should be paid to offensive and defensive linemen. Any time a defensive lineman picks up the football and runs it into the end zone, he can celebrate however he wants, no matter what the score is. It’s probably the only chance in his career to feel the joy that some running backs get to experience 20 times a season… so let him celebrate, baby!
My sentiments aren’t exactly uncommon. So what is the NCAA doing to make the game more exciting? That’s right; they’re cracking down on excessive celebrations. They’re even tossing around the idea of making some celebrations live-ball penalties, which means an excessive celebration may negate the very touchdown being celebrated. What? The NCAA uses the rationale that it wants to cut out taunting. Fine. Then penalize actual taunting. If I turn around and point at the d-back chasing me down as I cross the goal line, I deserve a flag. But I shouldn’t elicit one for dancing for joy when I score the go-ahead touchdown. The proposed rule change is overbroad. It should focus on the actual issue, rather than blanketing all modes of in-game expression. Don’t penalize a player for getting excited about a big score in a big game. Once again, the NCAA is proposing another rule change that hurts the players more than anybody else.
Transfer (Student) Athletes
If you transfer schools in college athletics, you have to sit out for a year. That’s the rule. The NCAA claims this cuts down on a deluge of student transfers every season, which I’m sure it does. The last thing I want to see happen is college hoops and college football turn into a free-agency driven sport, where athletes transfer every year just to get on a better team or to get more playing time. However, there are instances where the transfer rule as it stands imposes an undue hardship on players.
The University of Michigan has been in the news a lot lately for the slew of outgoing transfer students since Rich Rodriguez arrived as head football coach last fall. Ryan Mallett bolted before last year, then this offseason Sam McGuffie and Steven Threet sought greener pastures. Their reasons for transferring are valid: they don’t really fit into RichRod’s scheme. So they have to sit out for a season before they can play football again. Fine.
But what if you’ve been recruited to play for a certain coach, and then after your freshman year, that coach decides to jump ship and sign the big-dollar deal somewhere else? Now the school brings in a coach with a completely different offense, and it’s apparent that you’re not going to figure heavily into the game plan. Wouldn’t information like that have affected your decision to commit?
I know that players aren’t just committing to the coach, they’re committing to the school, too. But why is it a one-way street? Why can coaches abandon their school for money, with the only repercussion being a contract buyout (which is usually paid by the school that hired them)? Yet the players that were brought to the school by that coach can’t leave without sacrificing a year? That makes no sense.
Here’s what I propose: if you can show the following three elements, you should be allowed to transfer, no questions asked. No sitting out, you can go suit up somewhere else next season.
1) You must have been recruited by a coach who has since left the school to coach somewhere else (no credit for coaches who retire or get fired)
2) The coach must have been currently under contract at the time he left
3) The coach brought in to replace him must run a different style offense, and you must be able to show that the offense in question does not suit your style (yeah, it’s a subjective test, but these cases should be heard by a panel of coaches and NCAA officials. They can make these kind of judgments)
Notice I’m not calling for allowing full-scale transferring of student-athletes without repercussions. Not by a long shot. The NCAA will have to analyze transfer students on a case-by-case basis. They do this already, but the threshold that needs to be met for exemption should be relaxed. If the coach gets fired, the players are unaffected by this rule. Same thing as when a coach retires. It’s only when a coach leaves in the middle of his contract to take a different job. When Nick Saban left LSU (and MSU five years prior) and when RichRod left WVU, they left student-athletes behind that had come to their school under the presumption that they would be playing for a certain coach. When that certain coach then abandons the program with green in his eyes, those players should have some sort of remedy.
This isn’t the only time that I’m going to hit on the college game, I’m sure I’ll be back for at least one NCAA Tournament-related column. I can’t let my favorite 3 weeks in sports go by without saying anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment