Note: Caught Looking will likely be on hiatus this week while I'm out of the country for Thanksgiving break. When I return I'll post coverage of the Battle 4 Atlantis from Paradise Island in the Bahamas, and I'll have another special surprise to unveil toward the end of the month. Stay tuned!
After witnessing two consecutive crushing defeats at the hands of the Oregon Ducks, I was thrilled to see the Stanford Cardinal take down the nation's second-ranked team and give themselves a legitimate chance at a Pac-12 championship and a trip to the Rose Bowl. Once the final whistle sounded, I started to process all this might mean for the Cardinal program - the first league championship since the 1990s, a third consecutive BCS bowl bid (to three different bowls), and the continuation of the program's top-ten status post Andrew Luck's departure for the NFL. Eager to relive the game, I turned on SportsCenter when I got home and was looking forward to hearing some commentary about the win's significance for Stanford. Instead, all anyone was talking about was how Oregon blew their shot at the National Championship game, and how Stanford excelled in their role of spoiler.
Now, there's no doubt Stanford played the role of spoiler on Saturday night. The Ducks are no longer really part of the National Championship picture, and I'll admit that there was an essence of "sweet revenge" to this win. After all, Oregon ruined Stanford's last two seasons - both years, the Cardinal were undefeated before meeting Oregon, and both times Stanford left the game licking their wounds. But for me, this win was about much more than just getting back at a Pac-12 North rival. Traditionally when we talk about the role of spoiler, we think about an underdog team with nothing to play for except for the thrill of ruining a season for a team otherwise destined for great things. That wasn't the case on Saturday night, though, when the Cardinal had a lot to play for above and beyond knocking the Ducks a few rungs down the BCS ladder.
Earlier in the evening, an unranked Baylor team knocked off previously top-ranked Kansas State, and sports commentators everywhere basked in the glory of the Wildcats' suddenly flawed season. In this case, though, Baylor (and its partially empty stadium) wasn't playing for much -at 5-5 with two games remaining, the Bears are scrapping for bowl eligibility and a trip to a lower-tier bowl. Stanford, however, is in a completely different situation. After grabbing Oregon's top spot in the Pac-12 North standings, the Card deserve to be talked about as more than David to the Ducks' Goliath. The Cardinal have established themselves as a program that can compete with anyone in the country, and they should be considered more than a footnote in the story of Oregon's 2012 season.
I've been critical of the Cardinal all season, from their struggles throwing the ball to their questionable play calling in key situations. But despite the team's uninspired early season loss at Washington and a controversial defeat at Notre Dame, I have to admit that I was wrong about this 2012 Stanford team. I figured they'd struggle severely this season, but with just one regular season game to play (next week at a tough UCLA team) it's clear that this is a legitimate college football powerhouse. Now that I've admitted I was wrong, it's time for the sports media to start talking about Stanford as if they're more than the little engine that could. This is a big, powerful engine that might be a few weeks away from adding another BCS bowl victory to its resume.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Why Basketball Is An Indoor Sport
Last night, I watched the second game of the State Farm Champions Classic, which pitted Duke against Kentucky in Atlanta, GA. The game, which followed Michigan State's thrilling victory over Kansas, was an exciting contrast of styles - a well-played, high-profile non-conference matchup that we don't get enough of prior to March Madness. If there was a downside to the first game between the Blue Devils and the Wildcats since 2001, it was the fact that the Champions Classic organizers held the event in the cavernous Georgia Dome rather than (at worst) an NBA building like Atlanta's Phillips Arena or (at best) a classic college venue like Cameron Indoor Stadium or Rupp Arena. While playing the game in a football stadium undoubtedly increases paid attendance, allowing more people to see the contest live (reported attendance was 22,847) and generating more revenue for the event organizers and the participating schools, it diminishes one of the best parts of college basketball - the in-arena atmosphere. Buildings like Cameron, Rupp and Butler's Hinkle Fieldhouse are what distinguish college games from the most-homogenous NBA variety, and moving Duke vs. Kentucky to the Georgia Dome definitely took away from what could have been an even more intriguing matchup.
While Duke vs. UK would have been a lot more awesome if it was played on a college campus, it could have been worse - at least the game wasn't scheduled to be played on an aircraft carrier. Since North Carolina played Michigan State onboard the USS Carl Vinson last November, the NCAA and its schools have become obsessed with scheduling non-conference games where planes should be landing. Despite the fact that, last year, a Michigan State player injured his knee when he slipped on a wet spot on the floor (who would have thought that a court built atop a floating vehicle might have moisture issues?), three additional aircraft carrier games were scheduled for this past week. Mercifully for the players, two were cancelled - Florida vs. Georgetown on the USS Bataan in Jacksonville, FL and Ohio State vs. Marquette on the USS Yorktown in Mt. Pleasant, SC. Florida and Georgetown actually played a hideous first half, after which the game was called for moisture with the Gators leading the Hoyas 27-23. Syracuse and San Diego State got their game in on the USS Midway in San Diego, but the game was postponed two days from Friday to Sunday because of weather. Even when it was played on Sunday, though, "the gusty winds on the deck of the USS Midway were so strong that the outside shooting in Syracuse's 62-49 victory wasn't quite so pretty" - San Diego State shot 1 of 18 on three pointers and 14 of 33 on free throws.
Clearly, the Georgia Dome was not meant to host a basketball game.
While Duke vs. UK would have been a lot more awesome if it was played on a college campus, it could have been worse - at least the game wasn't scheduled to be played on an aircraft carrier. Since North Carolina played Michigan State onboard the USS Carl Vinson last November, the NCAA and its schools have become obsessed with scheduling non-conference games where planes should be landing. Despite the fact that, last year, a Michigan State player injured his knee when he slipped on a wet spot on the floor (who would have thought that a court built atop a floating vehicle might have moisture issues?), three additional aircraft carrier games were scheduled for this past week. Mercifully for the players, two were cancelled - Florida vs. Georgetown on the USS Bataan in Jacksonville, FL and Ohio State vs. Marquette on the USS Yorktown in Mt. Pleasant, SC. Florida and Georgetown actually played a hideous first half, after which the game was called for moisture with the Gators leading the Hoyas 27-23. Syracuse and San Diego State got their game in on the USS Midway in San Diego, but the game was postponed two days from Friday to Sunday because of weather. Even when it was played on Sunday, though, "the gusty winds on the deck of the USS Midway were so strong that the outside shooting in Syracuse's 62-49 victory wasn't quite so pretty" - San Diego State shot 1 of 18 on three pointers and 14 of 33 on free throws.
Long sleeves! Pants! It's Syracuse vs. San Diego State on the USS Midway!
In my mind, there are three main reasons to hate these suddenly-en-vogue aircraft carrier games. One, there's a real injury risk here - playing on a moist wooden surface is extremely dangerous, and these outdoor matchups put all of the players at risk. Second, the quality of play during these games is bound to be consistently terrible - between the wind, the cold and the sun, players can't calibrate their shots and the games are sloppy and low scoring as a result. Third, and perhaps most unfortunately, these games come at the expense of battles that could be among the highlights of the non-conference college basketball season. The teams invited to play in these nationally televised aircraft carrier games are all top-tier schools; matchups like Florida vs. Georgetown or Ohio State vs. Marquette would be intriguing regardless of where they are played. The best case scenario here is that the game will be ruined by the outdoor elements and an otherwise great matchup turns into an ugly one, like in the Syracuse win over San Diego State. The worst case scenario is what happened with the other two aircraft carrier games - they get cancelled because of weather, they don't get rescheduled and the fans lose out on the opportunity to see two big time programs play each other during a mostly uninteresting November of college hoops. Going forward, I hope the NCAA and its schools get smart and move these games to indoor venues, both for the sake of the players and the fans.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
What Changed for Mike Brown?
On Friday, the Los Angeles Lakers fired head coach Mike Brown after the team's 1-4 start to the 2012-13 season. The Lakers were all over the NBA headlines this offseason, from the acquisitions of high-profile superstars Dwight Howard and Steve Nash to the instillation of a new Princeton offense. Of course, its nothing new for head coaches to be fired in the midst of a disappointing season - the Knicks 2011-12 season, for example, was partially marked by the firing of Mike D'Antoni (currently a candidate for the Lakers vacancy) and the promotion of assistant coach Mike Woodson. From that perspective, I have no problems with the Lakers dumping Brown. My question, however, is: Why now?
Mike Brown has been an NBA coach since 2005-06, when he took the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Eastern Conference semifinals. Since then, his career has been marked by a series of "almosts" and "could have beens." His Cavs teams finished either first or second in the Central Division in each of his five years with the team, but only once reached the NBA Finals and never won the title despite having a roster that included arguably the best player in the NBA. Last year with the Lakers, Brown took Kobe and Co. to the Western Conference semis, but couldn't get past the Oklahoma City Thunder. Basically, after getting half a dozen seasons to prove himself, Mike Brown is who we thought he was (as Dennis Green might say) - a coach good enough to get you to the playoffs, but no further. I'm pretty sure that Mike Brown is the same coach today as he was this past summer, when the Lakers decided to bring him back for this season to lead the newly revamped Lake Show.
If Brown was good enough for the Lakers a month ago, what's changed in the last few weeks that lead the Buss family to change their minds about Brown? I find it almost impossible to believe that it was the team's 1-4 start - firing a head coach based on a five game sample size would be an extremely shortsighted panic move that I refuse the believe a franchise like the Lakers are capable of committing. Yes, the Lakers are 1-4, but so what? The Denver Nuggets - a team many expect to contend in the Western Conference this year - started the year with three consecutive disappointing losses. Since then, they've won four straight and have people talking about them as a force to be reckoned with. The NBA season is long, and the Buss family has been around long enough to know that a rough five game stretch - especially for a team bringing in a bunch of new players and instilling a new offense - means very little. So no, I don't buy the team's slow start as a rationale for Brown's firing.
So assuming Los Angeles knew what Brown was about way before this season started, and assuming that they're not overreacting to a slow first two weeks, why did the team make this move on Friday? Some are arguing that its so they could pursue either Phil Jackson or Jerry Sloan, but those two legendary coaches are no more available now than they were over the summer. I don't think Mike Brown is a particularly good coach and don't think he was ever a great fit for the Lakers, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's more true now than it was just a few weeks ago. I think the Lakers will be competitive with whomever they bring in to run the ship (yes, even with D'Antoni), but it's a shame to think about what they could have been if they used the offseason to integrate a new coach instead of making a strange move in mid-November.
I'm confused too, Mike Brown.
Mike Brown has been an NBA coach since 2005-06, when he took the Cleveland Cavaliers to the Eastern Conference semifinals. Since then, his career has been marked by a series of "almosts" and "could have beens." His Cavs teams finished either first or second in the Central Division in each of his five years with the team, but only once reached the NBA Finals and never won the title despite having a roster that included arguably the best player in the NBA. Last year with the Lakers, Brown took Kobe and Co. to the Western Conference semis, but couldn't get past the Oklahoma City Thunder. Basically, after getting half a dozen seasons to prove himself, Mike Brown is who we thought he was (as Dennis Green might say) - a coach good enough to get you to the playoffs, but no further. I'm pretty sure that Mike Brown is the same coach today as he was this past summer, when the Lakers decided to bring him back for this season to lead the newly revamped Lake Show.
If Brown was good enough for the Lakers a month ago, what's changed in the last few weeks that lead the Buss family to change their minds about Brown? I find it almost impossible to believe that it was the team's 1-4 start - firing a head coach based on a five game sample size would be an extremely shortsighted panic move that I refuse the believe a franchise like the Lakers are capable of committing. Yes, the Lakers are 1-4, but so what? The Denver Nuggets - a team many expect to contend in the Western Conference this year - started the year with three consecutive disappointing losses. Since then, they've won four straight and have people talking about them as a force to be reckoned with. The NBA season is long, and the Buss family has been around long enough to know that a rough five game stretch - especially for a team bringing in a bunch of new players and instilling a new offense - means very little. So no, I don't buy the team's slow start as a rationale for Brown's firing.
So assuming Los Angeles knew what Brown was about way before this season started, and assuming that they're not overreacting to a slow first two weeks, why did the team make this move on Friday? Some are arguing that its so they could pursue either Phil Jackson or Jerry Sloan, but those two legendary coaches are no more available now than they were over the summer. I don't think Mike Brown is a particularly good coach and don't think he was ever a great fit for the Lakers, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's more true now than it was just a few weeks ago. I think the Lakers will be competitive with whomever they bring in to run the ship (yes, even with D'Antoni), but it's a shame to think about what they could have been if they used the offseason to integrate a new coach instead of making a strange move in mid-November.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Enjoy It While You Can
Yesterday, I came across a great NBA-related article on Grantland entitled "The 5 Percent Theory: Why NBA teams shouldn't time their rise to avoid a juggernaut. Plus, 10 great things about the season so far." The article, written by columnist Zach Lowe, argues that "If you have some pieces, you're almost there, and if you're almost there, you go for it — even if the chances of toppling a superpower are slim." He backs his assertion up with comments from (among others) highly-respected Houston GM Daryl Morey and Dallas owner Mark Cuban, the latter of which compiled a championship-winning roster in 2011 even though everyone said that the Mavericks had no chance of toppling the Lakers, Celtics or Heat. Given how much luck and injuries play into the run to an NBA title, I strongly agree with Lowe - just because the Heat seem dominant and the Lakers and Thunder could be scary doesn't mean that the next set of teams should be treading water until LeBron and Wade are pulled apart and Kobe retires.
I thought about this article a lot in the context of the start that my beloved New York Knicks have had to the 2012-13 NBA season. While many fans are (perhaps overly) thrilled with the team's 3-0 record and, in particular, its impressive and inspired opening night victory over Miami, I've heard a ton of naysayers out there arguing that the Knicks are wasting their time and money on veterans like Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby and Jason Kidd when they should be building towards a future that doesn't include Heat and Lakers rosters headlined by any sort of "Big Three." These people argue that the Knicks are fooling themselves by thinking they have any chance to compete this year, and as such shouldn't try to do so. This argument relies on the logic that the only goal a team should have going into an NBA season is to win a championship. Is that the right way to look at it, though?
As a fan of the Braves - a team that consistently stays competitive but rarely wins it all - I might be biased here, but I don't believe in a championship-or-bust philosophy. True, there's nothing better than seeing your team take home the trophy - I still remember the Braves 1995 World Series victory like it was yesterday, and the two Super Bowls that the Giants have captured this decade sit at the top of my Best Sports Moments list. But as good as those highs are, the lows associated with following a truly uncompetitive team can be extremely painful - particularly when you feel like your team's ownership and management are willing to tolerate the losing. I agree with Zach Lowe - even if your team has just a 5% chance to capturing a title this season, you owe it to your fans and players to go for it.
Do I think the Knicks are going to win the NBA title this season? No, I don't. But do I think that, with a core of Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler and Amar'e Stoudemire and a surrounding cast comprised of useful veterans, the Knicks are at least in the conversation? Sure, why not! And as such, I applaud their moves to go get some veterans with playoff experience who can add leadership and play key roles this season without mortgaging the team's future. Just as I'll never understand why the Washington Nationals shut down Stephen Strasburg to preserve their chance at future World Series titles when they could have won a World Series with him this year, I don't understand the argument that the Knicks should lay low and let the Heat and Lakers battle for the 2013 title. I advise all Knicks fans to give this new roster (and coach Mike Woodson) a chance, and enjoy the good start while you can.
I thought about this article a lot in the context of the start that my beloved New York Knicks have had to the 2012-13 NBA season. While many fans are (perhaps overly) thrilled with the team's 3-0 record and, in particular, its impressive and inspired opening night victory over Miami, I've heard a ton of naysayers out there arguing that the Knicks are wasting their time and money on veterans like Kurt Thomas, Marcus Camby and Jason Kidd when they should be building towards a future that doesn't include Heat and Lakers rosters headlined by any sort of "Big Three." These people argue that the Knicks are fooling themselves by thinking they have any chance to compete this year, and as such shouldn't try to do so. This argument relies on the logic that the only goal a team should have going into an NBA season is to win a championship. Is that the right way to look at it, though?
As a fan of the Braves - a team that consistently stays competitive but rarely wins it all - I might be biased here, but I don't believe in a championship-or-bust philosophy. True, there's nothing better than seeing your team take home the trophy - I still remember the Braves 1995 World Series victory like it was yesterday, and the two Super Bowls that the Giants have captured this decade sit at the top of my Best Sports Moments list. But as good as those highs are, the lows associated with following a truly uncompetitive team can be extremely painful - particularly when you feel like your team's ownership and management are willing to tolerate the losing. I agree with Zach Lowe - even if your team has just a 5% chance to capturing a title this season, you owe it to your fans and players to go for it.
Do I think the Knicks are going to win the NBA title this season? No, I don't. But do I think that, with a core of Carmelo Anthony, Tyson Chandler and Amar'e Stoudemire and a surrounding cast comprised of useful veterans, the Knicks are at least in the conversation? Sure, why not! And as such, I applaud their moves to go get some veterans with playoff experience who can add leadership and play key roles this season without mortgaging the team's future. Just as I'll never understand why the Washington Nationals shut down Stephen Strasburg to preserve their chance at future World Series titles when they could have won a World Series with him this year, I don't understand the argument that the Knicks should lay low and let the Heat and Lakers battle for the 2013 title. I advise all Knicks fans to give this new roster (and coach Mike Woodson) a chance, and enjoy the good start while you can.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Opening Night on Celebrity Row
As I looked around MSG's Section 2, I assumed that everyone I saw was either super-rich, someone famous that I just couldn't recognize out of context, or both. After some not-so-discrete staring, I was able to point out hip-hop artist Mary J. Blige (sitting two rows directly in front of us) and New York Giants defensive end Justin Tuck. Everyone in our section, though - not just the celebrities - stuck out from the typical basketball fan in one way or another. Rather than Knicks jerseys and hoodies, the guys were wearing blazers and ties while their dates wore leather pants, stilettos and, in one instance, a see-through black tank top. The people holding beers were heavily outnumbered by those holding cocktails, and people stared at me when I got out of my seat to cheer after a big Raymond Felton three-pointer.
When you sit in the cheap seats, you spend a lot of time starting at the Jumbotron watching other people shown on the big screen. When you sit in the third row, you are one of those people. At one point in the second quarter I was featured prominently on the Jumbotron - another friend at the game texted me to let me know he recognized me - and toward the end of the game I was spotted on TV during the MSG broadcast (see if you can spot me Where's Waldo-style in the photo below). Along with all of the media exposure comes a downside, however - camera men constantly blocking your view and Knicks staffers camped out in the aisles ready to pounce on the next available photo opportunity.
Can you find me? Hint: Look all the way to the right.
Overall, I really enjoyed my experience rubbing elbows with the one percent in MSG's floor seats. What better way to take in the Knicks season opener against the star-studded Heat than sitting alongside the likes of Mary J. Blige and Justin Tuck? Going forward, I'll have no problem heading back up to the higher levels to cheer with the "real" fans - but for Friday night there was no place that I'd rather have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)