The Wizard of Westwood

Issue: College basketball already??

Short Answer: Sort of...

Reasoning: I was dallying around on Facebook the other day (which means I was so bored I didn't know what to do with myself), when I came across the following video.  Now, before you click play, let me warn you, it is long (something like 17 minutes), and the star of the video, John Wooden, may ramble from time to time (the guy lived to be almost 100...give him a break).  So, for those of you who do not have 17 minutes (I know you are reading this at work right now, soooo, c'mon, let's be honest), I will summarize for you after the video.

The first thing I notice is the title: The difference between winning and succeeding.  Most people would think they go hand-in-hand.  Mr. Wooden believes differently, and he does a great job explaining the difference.  A few other points worth noting:

• "Mr. Webster defined [success]: as the accumulation of material possessions or the attainment of a position of power or prestige...but in my opinion [that is] not necessarily indicative of success."
• "Dad tried to teach me and my brothers that you should never try to be better than someone else...always learn from others."
• "Never cease trying to be the best you can be - that's under your control.  If you get too engrossed and involved and concerned in regard to the things over which you have no control, it will adversely affect those things over which you have control."
• Mr. Wooden's definition of success: "Peace of mind attained only through self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to do the best of which you're capable."
• "Your reputation is what you are perceived to be; your character is what you really are."
• Mr. Wooden's number one rule in life: "Never be late."
• Mr. Wooden's advice to young coaches: "Don't run practices late.  Because you'll go home in a bad mood.  And that's not good, for a young married man to go home in a bad mood.  When you get older, it doesn't make any difference."
• "And I say to you, in whatever you're doing, you must be patient."
• "I think our tendency is to hope things will turn out the way we want them to much of the time.  But we don't do the things that are necessary to make those things become reality."
• "Don't whine.  Don't complain.  Don't make excuses.  Just get out there, and whatever you're doing, do it to the best of your ability."
• "My idea is that you can lose when you outscore somebody in a game.  And you can win when you're outscored."
• "I used to say that when a game is over, and you see somebody that didn't know the outcome, I hope they couldn't tell by your actions whether you outscored and opponent or the opponent outscored you."
• "I've had some players the could and wouldn't [pass the basketball], and I've had some that would and couldn't."

Those are the highlights.  What I can't show in my synopsis is Mr. Wooden quoting poetry as if he is reading it out of a book, somewhere in his mid-90's.  It's uncanny.  The video is worth the watch, because, in my opinion, anything Mr. Wooden says is worth listening to.  He is the greatest teacher of all time.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Did you watch that abomination of a national championship game?

Short Answer: Unfortunately, I did.

Reasoning: The NCAA national championship basketball game is supposed to offer us the best of the best of college basketball.  Two teams who have won five straight games against the toughest competition on the planet, battling each other for 40 minutes, to decide which is the best team in the entire country (and since college basketball at this level doesn't exist outside this country (maybe in Canada, but we all know that doesn't count), we can safely say the best team in the WORLD).  Anyone who knows anything about sports knows that it isn't always the two best teams that match up in the national championship game, but the two hottest teams.  I have been overly critical of the Big East on this blog (and I will continue to be so), but, UConn was undoubtedly the hottest team in the country.  They had won five straight games to win the Big East tournament crown (which is impressive, even in a weak conference), and five more straight games (that is ten straight for all you non-math majors out there) in the NCAA tournament.  It is tough to get any hotter than that.  However, Butler, going into last night, had won 14 straight games, i.e., possibly the second hottest team in the country.  So, we should have been in for one of the greatest championship games ever.  Should have.

What we were treated to, however, was easily the worst NCAA championship game ever, and, possibly the worst basketball game I have ever seen.  As Billy Hoyle famously said in White Men Can't Jump, "Is this s#%t regulation?"  It looked like both teams were playing on 12-foot rims or using an oversized ball.  UConn and Butler looked like Shaq shooting free-throws.  Neither could hit water if they fell out of a boat, sand if they fell of a camel, mud if they fell off a pig...okay, you get it.  This is the first time in my life I have felt sorry for the NCAA - could that game have been anymore anti-climactic?  The answer is no.

The Odd Stat of the Week is probably an obvious one to anyone who watched the game.  Even if you didn't see the stat or hear the announcers, you realized that Butler's futility was historical.  The only question is: how historical?  Well, ladies and gents, Butler just got finished shooting the worst field goal percentage in the history of national championship games.  Period.  I briefly saw a stat last night that said the previous record was held by Washington State in the 1941 national championship game (I didn't even know Washington was a state then), when they shot a paltry 21% from the field.  That seems impossible to beat.  You have to try to shoot that bad.  But, thanks to the Butler Bulldogs, a 70-year old record fell, and fell hard.  Butler shot 18.8% from the field (12 for 64) last night.  That, is the Odd Stat of the Week, but, listen to the rest of this*:

• UConn's 53 point total was the lowest winning total since 1949, when Kentucky (barf) put up 46 points in its win;
• Butler's 18.8% field goal percentage was the third lowest in any NCAA tournament game ever;
• Butler's 12 field goals tied a record low in an NCAA championship game - Oklahoma State had only 12 field goals against Kentucky in 1949 (which tells us how Kentucky won scoring only 46 points);
• Butler was 3 for 31 from INSIDE the 3-point arc.  Yes, they shot under 10% from 2-point range;
• Butler's 3 2-point field goals were the fewest by any championship game participant ever - by 6 (the previous low was 9).  Of course, we should give Butler some deference, because before 1986, there was no three-point line anyway, so, all buckets were 2-pointers.  No way any team is only making three buckets the entire game.

In the end, it is a shame.  I think most people outside of New England were rooting for Butler.  Brad Stevens, Matt Howard, and Shelvin Mack are all likable guys.  Plus, no matter what anyone says, they were underdogs.  Not many people had them getting out of the second round, including all the "experts" on ESPN.  It is mostly a shame because those guys choked on the biggest stage there is.  And, no matter how much we like the guys from Butler, they did choke.  But, after this year, I see no reason why they won't be back there again next year, fighting for a national title.  Are you going to doubt them?

* Stats taken from Andy Katz.

March Madness Lessons, Part II

Issue: How are your brackets looking?

Short Answer: Ha.  Ha.  Ha.

Reasoning: This could be the craziest NCAA tournament, ever.  And the following lessons have been learned:

This is the most improbable Final Four ever - My buddy Doug sent me an email yesterday that said a person at "Predict Machine" (neither of us know what this is) said that the odds of picking this Final Four, when putting all 68 teams into a computer generating program, were 1 in 93,297,507.  Now, I can't substantiate these odds (and I don't think Doug or "Predict Machine" really can either), but, to me, it seems a bit low.  I would think it's more like 1 in a googleplex.  Or worse.  However, I would be wrong (again).  On espn.com there were around 5.9 million brackets filled out (6 of those were by me).  And you know what?  Two people actually picked this Final Four.  No joke.  I'm sure one is a Butler alum and the other is a VCU alum, but hey, whatever.  Here is one (this guy is in first place), and here is the other (this guy (or girl) is in 6,343 place!).  CRAZY.  Here are some more crazy bracket stats* (remember, this is out of 5.9 million brackets):

• Only .00017% (1,023) had three Final Four teams correct (I'm betting most missed VCU);
• Only 2.1% had two Final Four teams correct;
• Only 27.6% had one Final Four team correct (I have one of these!  Picked UConn in my all Big East Final Four bracket (West Virginia, Louisville, and Pittsburgh were my other three teams - wonder what place that bracket is in?));
• All of this means that 70.3% of brackets filled out on espn.com now have exactly zero teams left;
• 0.6% (36,732) of brackets correctly picked Butler in the Final Four;
• 0.1% (5,791) of brackets correctly picked VCU in the Final Four;
• .0000325% (192) brackets correctly picked the VCU v. Butler national semifinal;
• 1.9% (112,489) of brackets correctly picked Kentucky v. UConn in the national semifinal;

You can't make this stuff up folks.  The madness this March is unmatched by any madness in any March ever.  And it's not even over yet.

Experience pays off in March - With the exception of VCU, every team left has serious experience.  Butler was in the final game last year, and came a half-court shot away from winning the national title.  They lost their best player (Gordon Hayward), but returned a senior leader in Matt Howard and a future NBAer in Shelvin Mack.  Plus, their #1 seed was Pittsburgh, and we all know how weak the Big East really was.  However, UConn did make it to the Final Four, thanks to their coach (who has made Final Fours (1999, 2004, 2009, and 2011) and won two national championships (1999 and 2004 (over my beloved Yellow Jackets)), their Big East tournament title (which gave them the momentum to run through the NCAA tournament), and the best player in the country (Kemba Walker - sorry Jimmer).  The Big East may be weak, but the hottest team from the Big East is still a national contender.  Then there is Kentucky who is led by John Calipari who has been here and done this before, with numerous teams (UMass Final Four, 1996; Memphis Final Four, 2008; Kentucky Final Four, 2011 - keep in mind though, both the UMass and Memphis Final Four appearances were vacated by the NCAA, so, Calipari has a lot of experience cheating as well).  He knows what it takes to get where they are now, and, he has some pretty talented players as well.

Brad Stevens is a stud - Look, I am one who has always believed coaching doesn't necessarily win you games, but it can certainly lose you games.  Brad Stevens has proved me wrong.  Two years in a row, he has taken what most would consider sub-par teams, to the national championship game.  In the last two NCAA tournaments Brad Stevens has more coaching wins than Mike Krzyzewski, Roy Williams, Bill Self, Jamie Dixon, Jim Calhoun, Thad Matta, etc.  After this year, no matter how Butler comes out of this tournament, Brad Stevens will have more leverage than any coach in history, to write his own ticket.  I think most division I schools would gladly fire their coach on the spot to have Brad Stevens.  The question then becomes, can Butler afford to keep him?  For their sake, I hope they can.  I would like to see Brad Stevens stay at Butler for his entire career and continue leading them back to the Final Four when no one believes they can do it.  Only time will tell though.

I was right!!! - Sort of.  In my first "March Madness Lessons" (posted here), I wrote the following: "Every team left is great.  Any one of them can beat Ohio State on any given day.  No question.  But, I believe it is their tournament to lose.  Although, the way I pick brackets and handicap games, they will probably lose to Kentucky.  But I doubt it." (emphasis added).  Now, if only I could truly start believing, that I truly suck at picking brackets and handicapping games, I could probably make myself some serious money.  But, as much basketball as I watch, I still believe I know what I am talking about.  Sad, really.

I believe UConn will play Butler for the national championship - Which means, undoubtedly, that Kentucky and VCU will square off for the national title.  Now, I need to go hop on a plane to Vegas.

 

*Stats taken from here.

The Odd Stat of (Last) Week

Issue: Baseball yet?

Short Answer: Not quite.  But, it will be coming soon.  For now, let's stick to basketball.

Reasoning: So far, the NCAA tournament has been played through the first two rounds.  I don't care that the NCAA, and ESPN, continue to claim there have been three rounds played so far.  Adding three teams (remember, the field has been 65 for a few years now) to the tournament does not change a thing, except how much money the NCAA is making.  It will be the same reasoning they use when they expand the tournament to 96 teams and perhaps allow the UConn, Tennessee, Stanford, and Baylor women's teams in.

All that aside, with 68 teams in the tournament, there were quite a few games that, on paper, looked like blowouts - all of the #1 seeds over the #16 seeds included.  No one, and I mean no one, saw any of the #8 vs. #9 matchups as being possible blowout games.  Yet, two of them (Illinois v. UNLV and Michigan v. Tennessee) turned into laughers.  In fact, Michigan's 75-45 victory was the second biggest blowout of the entire first round (yeah, I said it, FIRST round - Oh, and the biggest blowout was Duke beating Hampton by 42).  So, is Michigan's 30 point victory the biggest ever by a #8 seed?  I bet it is, but, I really have no idea.  If you want to look it up and let me know, that would be great.  Although, I really don't care.  So, save your time.

Michigan did make history in that game against Tennessee though.  It is the type of history you will not believe, and, the type of history that makes for a great "Odd Stat of the Week."  Most of the time when "never before" stats arise in the NCAA tournament there is an asterisk stating "since the tournament expanded to 64 teams (1985)."  Not this time.  The Michigan Wolverines became the first team EVER, to win a tournament game, without making a single free throw.  I will give you a chance to digest that fact.  Done?  Not only did Michigan not make a single free throw, they only attempted one.  A single free throw attempted, a single free throw missed, a 30-point victory.  Some of this can be accounted to Tennessee's Athletic Director, who, just days before the game, said on the radio that head coach Bruce Pearl may or may not return next year.  Add that with Michigan's quick start, and, it looked like most of the Vols simply quit.  And, when players don't play hard, fouls don't happen.  Then again, if the Vols had fouled, they may have lost by 50.

Runner-up for Odd Stat of (Last) Week - Ohio State, Cincinnati, Xavier, Louisville, and Kentucky all went to the Big Dance, in the same year, for the first time since.............1961.  Wow.

March Madness Lessons

Issue: What have you learned so far from the first weekend of the big dance?

Short Answer: Please, read on...

Reasoning: No need for a long lead-in here.  Let's get right to it:

The Big East is, once again, the most overrated conference in the country - Now, before anyone starts getting all upset, I didn't say that the Big East sucks (although...).  I don't believe that.  In fact, the Big Ten is the only conference I thought may have been better than the Big East this year (turns out I was wrong there too).  Based on the metrics the selection committee uses, I believe all 11 Big East teams that made the dance, deserved to be there.  And, maybe the metrics is where the problem lies.  See, RPI is one of those metrics (Jay Bilas has said this should stand for "Really Poor Indicator") the committee uses.  Some think RPI (which actually stands for "Rating Percentage Index"...huh?) is actually the best indicator of how good a team is, which, is asinine at best.  RPI is made up of a team's winning percentage (25%), its opponent's winning percentage (50%), and those opponent's opponent's winning percentage (25%).  So, when Cincinnati plays Pittsburgh their RPI skyrockets.  But, it skyrockets even more because Cincinnati is getting credit for Pittsburgh also playing UConn and Georgetown and Notre Dame.  And, since all the media jocks the Big East like the cure for cancer lies somewhere inside the conference, all those teams are highly rated throughout the year.  As of today (3/22/2010) the Big East still has 10 teams in the top 39 in the RPI poll.  Most of them are sitting at home watching the tournament.  Let's take a game-by-game look at the Big East:

• #4 Louisville loses to #13 Morehead State (good start)
• #9 Villanova (who shouldn't have been in the tournament after losing their last 5 games of the year, but, the Big East bias lives) loses to #8 George Mason
• #6 Georgetown gets annihilated by #11 VCU
• #6 St. John's gets whooped by #11 Gonzaga
• Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, UConn, Syracuse, Marquette, and West Virginia actually make it out of the first round
• Round two (or, as the stupid NCAA calls it - Round three)
• #1 Pittsburgh (supposedly the best team in the Big East) loses to #8 Butler
• #6 Cincinnati loses to #3 UConn
• #5 West Virginia chokes against #4 Kentucky
• #3 Syracuse loses to #11 Marquette
• #2 Notre Dame gets embarrassed by #10 Florida State

Ladies and gentlemen, that leaves two Big East teams, out of 11, left in the tourney.  Most people have noticed that two of those teams were knocked out by other Big East foes.  First, if over 17% OF THE ENTIRE BRACKET comes from one conference, a few may have to square off against each other.  Second, all that tells me is if two Big East teams didn't square off to go to the Sweet 16, then, probably none would have made it.  Four single-digit seeded Big East teams lost to double-digit seeded teams.  Keep telling yourself this is because they beat up on each other all year, and they are too tired now.  20-year old kids don't get tired, and, if you can't get yourself up for a national championship run, then you are soft.  And so is the Big East.

Virginia Tech and Boston College got jobbed - Let me explain.  Every year one power conference that everyone thinks is great lays an egg (otherwise known as the Big East), and, one power conference that everyone thinks is not so good turns out to be damn good.  Pre-tournament, I thought this would be the SEC.  They were awful this year, and they seemed to fit the bill.  Turns out however, it was my former conference, the ACC.  Perhaps the best conference in the history of college basketball, the storied ACC only got 4 teams in the tournament this year.  And, Clemson, who was one of the "last 4 in," had to play their way into the tournament.  Clemson lost in the second (?) round to West Virginia after having them down by 10 in the first half.  Duke survived a scare, as did North Carolina, but Florida State looks like a contender after dismantling a Notre Dame team that I had going to the final game (sometimes the bias just seeps through people's skin - eff me).  Boston College was 21-13, 9-7 in the ACC; Virginia Tech was 22-12, 9-7 in the ACC; Clemson was 22-12, 9-7 in the ACC, and was the only one of the three to get in the big dance.  The ACC is now 7-1 in the tournament, which, to me, means the NIT got at least two teams that should have been in the real tournament.  Pretty sure Virginia Tech would beat Georgetown by 50.

The Southwest bracket is March Madness - In the first round alone, the #9, #10, #11, #12, and #13 advanced.  For the first time since the field expanded to 64 teams (1985) have three double-digit seeds advanced to the Sweet 16.  #10 Florida State (who actually led the nation in field-goal percentage defense, held opponents to the lowest field-goal percentage in the NCAA in 10 years (36%)), #11 VCU (who has to be the hottest team in the tournament after destroying Purdue), and #12 Richmond (who is only a #12 because the A-10 had a down year) all advanced to the Sweet 16.  Since Florida State plays VCU, one double-digit seed will reach the Elite 8.  And, if you tell me that Richmond can't beat Kansas, then you haven't been watching much basketball.

Unless they choke, Ohio State will win it all - Now, don't get me wrong, I can see them losing.  They obviously didn't go undefeated during the regular season.  However, every game from here on out is on a neutral court.  When teams don't have to go into a hostile environment, usually, the better team wins.  No one is more talented than the Buckeyes (yes, I say this with extreme prejudice - deal with it).  Every team left is great.  Any one of them can beat Ohio State on any given day.  No question.  But, I believe it is their tournament to lose.  Although, the way I pick brackets and handicap games, they will probably lose to Kentucky.  But I doubt it.

Holy S@%t!!!

Issue: What gives?

Short Answer: This video is unreal.

Reasoning: It's March Madness, so I figured I'd roll with it.  The video at the bottom of this post features Jacob Tucker.  Jacob just finished his senior year at Illinois College, where he was a member of their basketball team.  Illinois College is a Division III school that competed quite well this year, finishing 16-8 (12-4 in conference).  Jacob averaged 14.8 points per game and 7.1 rebounds per game.  Not bad.  But, playing basketball at a Division III school means that you have never heard of Jacob Tucker, nor should you have.  But, soon, you may.  You see, Jacob can jump.  Really, really high.  That doesn't make him any different than most other basketball players, but there are a certain few things that do.

The first thing that makes Jacob different, and the first thing that one may notice when they watch the video, is that he is white.  Now look, I don't want to make this a racial thing, but a white boy that can jump is an oddity.  It's like a white wide receiver, or a black swimmer, or a female athlete (before anyone gets upset, again, I am just kidding - female athletes don't fit in this list because there has never been one, but there have been white wide receivers and black swimmers - just very few).  "White Men Can't Jump" is one of the best, and most appropriately named movies, of all time.  The movie title may have ticked a few people off, but I am not among those.  I am white, and you should see me try to jump - it ain't pretty.  Jacob, however, looks white in the video, but after watching the entire thing (for the 17th time), I am convinced that his whiteness is a well-conceived camera trick.  Or, this dude is a freak.

The second thing that makes Jacob different, although it is tough to tell from the video (apart from the beginning, where it tells you this) is the fact that he is 5'11".  Seriously.  The dude is under six-foot tall and white.  He shouldn't be able to do the things he does in this video.  But he does.  You may remember the video I posted about Johnny Mac "trick shot quarterback", where I basically called b.s. on the content of said video.  My entire being wants to do the same to this video, but, after careful deliberations, I have come to the conclusion that Jacob Tucker is just a complete freak-of-nature.  At 5'11", Jacob sports a 50" vertical leap.  Yes, you read that correctly.  I would have to jump twice in order to reach 50" (alright, maybe three times).  I'm pretty sure, in a dunk contest, I would take Jacob over Blake Griffin.  Never underestimate the shock-and-awe of a short guy dunking (remember Spud Webb?).  Add in the fact that he is white, and I think the judges would be hypnotized along with everyone else.

By the way, Jacob put this video together in order to get into the college slam-dunk contest.  You can vote for him here: http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/6197777/dunk-contest-resume.  I know I will.

B"Why?"U

Issue: Brandon Davies?

Short Answer: Yup.

Reasoning: In one of the most talked about stories in recent sports history, Brandon Davies, sophomore forward for the #3 ranked BYU Cougars, was suspended indefinitely from the team for having premarital sex with his girlfriend.  If you have been living in the vicinity of a quarry for the last week, yes, you read that correctly.  A 19-year old sophomore in college was suspended for having sex.  What's next?  Jail time for 5-year olds who are caught eating cookies?  Fines for 22-year olds nabbed sucking back a few (too many) beers?  Probation for little old ladies busted playing bingo?  Geez.  What is going on in Utah?

I have read, and heard, quite a few opinion pieces on this subject.  Mark Kiszla of the Denver Post writes a great one here.  Most of the opinions are that Davies has been screwed harder than Jenna Jameson.  In this situation, it is hard to argue that BYU has done the correct thing because a 19-year old kid's future may be at stake.  However, I believe BYU is being unfairly painted as the villain in this case.  See, BYU "exist[s] to provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  I took that quote straight from BYU's website.  Part of ideals and principles of the Church are to "live a chaste and virtuous life."  Guess where I got that quote from?  And, if a student decides to not live a chaste and virtuous life, then that "may result in actions up to and including separation from the university."  No need to click on the link - it is, again, from the BYU website.  My point in quoting directly from BYU's honor code is to show that their virtues are not secret.  They didn't nail Davies on some loophole.  He committed an act that is well known to carry with it suspension from athletic teams and/or suspension from school - for better or for worse.  Davies knew what he was signing up for when he decided to attend BYU.  He knew that having sex with his girlfriend could cost him his career.  So then, who is to blame?

Here comes another "duck and cover" moment for me - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to blame.  I don't specifically mean the Church, but the failure of that Church to evolve with the times.  Folks, I think religion is one of the greatest institutions in the world.  I admire people who strongly believe in their faith, and do good things in the name of God.  However, religion in general has been passed over by society.  Religion refuses to evolve.  I found an interesting article detailing a list of sins in the Mormon religion.  Some of the highlights include:

• Anger, resentment, and ridicule are the same as murder.  Uh, dude, no they aren't.  I get that each are "sins," but c'mon.  Really?
• Lust is the same as adultery.  Again, not even close.  Lust is an emotion that humans cannot suppress.  What humans can do is not act on that lust - only then does it become adultery.
• Not loving your enemy is a sin.  What?  Seriously?  I do not love those who committed the acts of September 11, 2001, nor those who are set on destroying America.  And I never will.
• Worry is a sin.  Here again, the Church supposes that an emotion is a sin.  I am not a worrier, but I know plenty of people who are - parents especially.  So, if a parent worries about their child they are sinning?  How dare they.
• Anything of a prurient nature is a sin.  Premarital sex, masturbation, and contraceptives are all sins.  Well, it seems that some of us stand no chance.

Thousands of years ago (or hundreds in the case of Mormons), the above list may have been sins.  Today, not so much.  Times and people evolve.  I'm not sure why religion refuses to do so.  I guess I'm just not sure how abstaining from sex when you are 19-years old (or anytime you are unmarried) makes you a better person.  Or a more virtuous person.  Or a more holy person.  I think a 19-year old can learn more from actually having sex than he can from not having sex.  Having sex is a grown-up thing.  It can have grown-up consequences.  So, maybe it can help a young boy grown into a man.  Or, maybe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can use it to help end a young boy's promising career.  Which one is worse?

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Anything obscure happen in college basketball this week?

Short Answer: If division III counts, then yes.

Reasoning: As February comes to a close, talk begins to turn to college basketball and the "who's in" and "who's out" of the NCAA tournament.  The Big East is tough, the ACC is always good, and the Big Ten is having a year of resurgence.  March should be fantastic this year, as it always is.  However, 3,000 miles away from where I sit right now, something bigger happened this week, and most people heard nothing about it.  The Caltech Beavers are a division III athletic institution.  They are a private school with about 950 undergraduate students (my high school was much bigger).  And, they don't give out athletic scholarships.  Thirty-one faculty and alumni have won the Nobel Prize.  Hence, basketball takes a back seat at Caltech.  Or, maybe they don't even get a seat.  That is why they have been beaten time and time again, at an historical rate.

On February 22rd (or 23rd, depends on what time zone you live in), 2011, Caltech beat Occidental 46-45 (sounds like a high school score, and, something tells me there are high school teams out there that could beat both squads) in their final game of the season.  This is newsworthy because Caltech and Occidental play in the same conference - the Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (a basketball powerhouse) - and this was Caltech's first conference victory since...January 23, 1985.  That's right, it had been 310 conference games and 26 years since Caltech's last conference victory.  That stat is hard to wrap one's head around.  It seems impossible.  But, when you realize that Caltech finished this year 5-20, locking up their best record in 15 years, you realize how effing bad the Beavers really are.  Last year, the Beavers were 0-15.  The last time they had a winning record was 1954.  They suck so bad the Cincinnati Bengals feel sorry for them.  Maybe.  Let us now play, what-the-world-was-like the last time Caltech won a conference game (Jan. 23, 1985)*:

1. I was only 6 years old.  Wow.  That was a looong time ago.
2. Three days before Caltech's last conference victory, the San Francisco 49ers beat the Miami Dolphins 38-16 in Super Bowl XIX (yes, that is Super Bowl 19 - Green Bay just won Super Bowl 45).
3. Five days after Caltech's last conference victory, a bunch of entertainers got together and recorded "We Are The World" to raise money to combat famine in Ethiopia.
4. "Out Of Africa" won 7 Oscars, including best picture, even though I believe "Back To The Future" should have won every single Oscar that year.
5. The Grammy winner for song of the year was Tina Turner's "What's Love Got To Do With It?", and the award for best new artist went to Cyndi Lauper (anyone feeling really old yet?).
6. "The Cosby Show" edged out "Cheers" and "Family Ties" to win the primetime Emmy for best comedy series.  I miss good TV.
7. The median household income was under $24,000, a gallon of gas was $1.20, a dozen eggs cost $0.80, and a first-class stamp was $0.20.  Sheesh.

Oliver Eslinger, Caltech Head Coach, after the victory**: “Tonight’s win is a testament to the hard work each member of this team, the alumni and the supporters have put into this program. I hope that everyone who has participated in Caltech men’s basketball is able to celebrate a little bit tonight...[w]e still have goals and aspirations that we want to accomplish as a program and this win is another step toward meeting these objectives.”  Goals and aspirations?  Really?  What, like win another conference game before 2037?  Maybe Caltech should just keep pumping out Nobel Prizes, because they will never have another celebration like this:

Wow.  And I thought I couldn't feel any more sorry for these guys.  But, in their defense, they are almost certainly smarter than you or me.  At least they have that going for them.

*I got most of these from Wikipedia, so I don't know if they are correct or not.  But, I think they are.

**The article where I got most of this information.

Parity at its Finest

Issue: Didn't you already use that title once?

Short Answer: Sort of.  For this hilarious video post.  But, this is "parity," not "parody."

Reasoning: My old high school teammate Tim wrote on my Facebook page about an article from the Wall Street Journal about the craziness going on in the sports world, and, especially the state of California.  I went in search of the column but quickly realized I am not a member of the WSJ online, and have no desire to be one ("disposable income" is not in my lexicon these days).  So, I am going to just go off what Tim said was in the article, the crux of which is the state of parity in athletics - California being the microcosm of said parity.  I'm not sure words can describe how much I love parity, but you know I'm going to try.

The NBA sucks.  I hate it, and I don't watch it.  Usually, it is 8 guys standing around watching two guys play one-on-one.  I'd rather watch college basketball, where guys dive on the floor and attack the rim, for pure love of the game (or because they are attempting to impress NBA scouts - either way, I don't care, the passion of the college game makes it better).  However, our parody-in-sports journey begins with the NBA.  The L.A. Lakers are one of the few west coast teams (in any sport) that seem to escape the east coast "media bias."  People love the Lakers, and always have - not just in Los Angeles.  The L.A. Clippers have always been the red-headed stepchild of the Lakers.  They are never good, and, in fact, are usually the laughingstock of the league (kind of like the Bengals in the NFL - this is why I don't feel sorry for Clippers fans).  But, this year, Los Angeles has been introduced to an ex-Oklahoma Sooner named Blake Griffin.  Folks, if you haven't seen this guy, then you don't watch any highlight shows.  His dunks are of legend.  He is the brightest superstar the entire league has right now (everyone hates LeBron; people are tired of Carmelo; and Kobe is just as whiny as he's always been), and he is an L.A. Clipper.  Strange.

But it gets even more strange.  California has never had a slew of great college football teams.  However, the University of Southern California, over the last 10 years, has been a constant in the top-10 rankings.  They have competed for, and won, National Championships and Heisman Trophies (Carson Palmer anyone?  Ha!).  But, who would have thought the best college football team in California (and one of the best in the country) last year would be the Stanford Cardinal?  Have you ever met anyone from Stanford?  I have.  I played collegiate summer baseball with quite a few kids from there.  And, the only thing I remember about each and every one of them is how socially awkward they were.  Most didn't talk.  When they did, nothing but nonsense came spewing forth.  Myself and the rest of my teammates chalked it up to them being too smart for their own good.  You know, trying to dumb everything down for the idiots on the team (although Andrew Luck doesn't seem to be that smart).  Anyway, my point is, how can such socially awkward, smart-as-can-be, non-athletic kids make up the best college football team in California?  My guess is Jim Harbaugh.  This one may not last long.

Finally, we get to college basketball.  The UCLA program is the best ever.  USC is usually not bad.  Stanford is hit or miss (socially awkward kids aren't usually good at basketball either).  So, who is leading the way this year?  San Diego State and St. Mary's.  Huh?  The best thing to ever come out of San Diego State is Marshall Faulk (not a basketball player) and the best thing to come out of St. Mary's is a bunch of people with degrees (although my former minor league teammate Mark Teahen went to St. Mary's - best I can do).  At the time this post went to press San Diego State was 27-1 and #4 in the coaches poll (for those of you who don't believe coaching matters - Steve Fisher anyone?); St. Mary's was 22-6, coming off two straight losses (one to lowly San Diego University - I hope they were without their best players for some reason).  UCLA is not great.  USC is not good.  Stanford is turrrrible.  It's nice to see some of the little guys get their comeuppance.  And, it's nice to see some of the big guys take a fall.  I love parity in all sports - it makes it more fun to watch (which is all I do anyway).

I'm going to Las Vegas and putting all my money on the Padres to win the World Series.  Alright, maybe not.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Are you the type of person who typically gives credit when credit is due?

Short Answer: Sure I am, but...

Reasoning: ...I really despise everything Pittsburgh.  I don't watch hockey at all, but I hate the Penguins.  The Pirates haven't been relevant in years, but I still can't stand them.  Thankfully, since Pittsburgh is a smaller sized city, they don't have teams in all of the major sports, and, they only have one college program to speak of, the University of [crappy city] (Duquesne and Robert Morris are neck and neck for the next best).  So, as a longtime Cincinnatian and Bengal fan, I am afforded the opportunity to direct most of my hatred toward the Steelers.  And, rightfully so.  The Steelers have won three-times as many Super Bowls as the Bengals have been to.  Their quarterback (I'm not denying his talent here people - he is good, no doubt about it) has to be one of the biggest d-bags on the planet, and he is a Super Bowl winner two-times over (thank you Green Bay Packers).  And, just typing the name "Hines Ward" makes me want to vomit (he went to the University of Georgia too - I've been hating him for quite awhile). I don't hate them because they are good, but that makes me hate them more.

But, the NFL season is over (thanks again to the Packers), so I've been watching a lot of college basketball, and, living in Cincinnati (Big East team), I watch a lot of Big East games.  Quite a few of these games have featured the top-5 ranked University of Pittsburgh Panthers.  In watching the Panthers play I have realized a few things: 1) I like their Head Coach, Jamie Dixon; 2) I don't hate the team as much as I would like, you know, because of the "Pittsburgh" across their chest; and 3) They are damn good.  Even in the game the Panthers most recently lost at St. John's, they were winning most of the game (after the first ten minutes), and were beat on a lay-up where the St. John's player stepped out of bounds.  The Panthers are fundamentally sound and play great defense.  I think I may have them going far in my tournament bracket (even though the Big (L)East usually lays an egg in the tourney).

My Odd Stat of the Week will tell you that the Panthers have been damn good for awhile, and have been that good without much in the cupboard.  On February 7, when Pittsburgh won at West Virginia, they solidified their 10th straight season with 20+ wins and 10+ Big East wins.  With the parity that exists today in college athletics, that is nothing short of unreal.  Especially because they have done it in what is considered the top conference in the nation, by most (not me).  Pittsburgh has also done this without a single first-round NBA draft pick (they have had only four total first-rounders ever: Jerome Lane (of Bill Raftery "send it in Jerome!" fame as he broke the backboard) and Charles Smith in 1988, Eric Mobley in 1994, and Vonteego Cummings (uh, what?) in 1999).  Since 2002, when this streak started, Pittsburgh has only had 4 total players drafted, all in the second round (Chris Taft in 2005, Aaron Gray in 2007, and Sam Young and DeJuan Blair in 2009).  Good coaching, fundamental basketball, tough defense, and even tougher players, all of whom are unselfish, have made the Pittsburgh Panthers into a formidable force in college basketball.  And that makes me like them.  A little bit.

Geno Auriemma

Issue: Did every person who saw the title of this post either react by 1) skipping the post entirely; or 2) saying, "who?"

Short Answer: Yes.

Disclaimer: I know women athletes are good at what they do.  I know any woman on UConn's team could smoke me in one-on-one, HORSE, around-the-world, or whatever.  The following post is not an indictment on women athletes, just the place women's athletics hold in our society.

Reasoning: Let's get something straight first - Geno Auriemma is one of the best coaches, period, ever.  I don't care if you coach women's little league softball for a bunch of 7 year olds, if you win as much as he does, you are good.  But let's be honest, he is also one of the most irrelevant coaches ever.

Looking back at the original issue - who are the people that thought about skipping over this post entirely?  Men.  And men don't give a crap about women's sports, college or pro (yes, the WNBA STILL exists; how or why I am not sure).  Alright, that is not completely true.  I do like some women's sports, i.e., those which have hot women dressed scantily.  I have watched enough women's basketball in my day (about 7 minutes and 23 seconds in over 32 years of life) to know that women's basketball does not fall into said "hot women dressed scantily" category.  At all.  Beach volleyball does.  Tennis does.  Soccer kind of does (if they started wearing less clothes, it might).  Basketball does not.  So, in order to be a relevant coach you either need to 1) coach men; or 2) coach hot chicks.  Sorry Geno.  Oh for two.

Looking back at the original issue - who are the people who said, "who?"  Women.  Yes, that's right, if a woman is telling you the truth, even she will admit that women's sports are irrelevant.  They exist only because of political correctness and Title IX (Sidenote: Title IX was the worst piece of legislation, maybe ever.  For those who don't know, Title IX stated that all athletic departments must have the same number of women scholarship athletes as men (excluding football).  Ouch.  When I was on a recruiting trip to Mississippi State in the fall of 1996, I got the chance to sit across from, and converse with, one of the greatest college baseball coaches ever, Ron Polk.  He was lamenting Title IX because schools had to either add sports (which costs a lot of money) or cut sports (which no university wants to do).  He told me a story about his niece, who went to the University of Iowa.  She was standing in line to register for classes (remember life before the Internet?) when she was approached by someone from the athletic department who asked if she wanted to join the women's rowing team (a sport that was added in order to comply with Title IX).  She had never rowed in her life, but she was a thicker, powerful looking girl.  The nearest lake to the University of Iowa is 45 minutes away.  What would they give her to join the team?  A full scholarship.  Ladies and gentlemen, Title IX!).  Women's sports make zero money.  In fact, they make negative money (to be fair, almost all collegiate sports, other than football and men's basketball, actually lose money).  The biggest thing that has happened in women's college basketball in the last 25 years is Brittney Griner - a woman (I think - seriously, type her name into google and one of the autocompletes google comes up with is "Brittney Griner man") who can dunk.

I know this is not politically correct, but women's sports are, and always will be, irrelevant.  When I watch sports I want to watch the best of the best, and men are bigger, faster, and stronger, so they put on a better show.  Let's put it this way: if you were going to go watch a high school football game, would you go watch the freshman team play, or the varsity?  Exactly.  So, what does this all mean to Geno Auriemma?  He will always be really, really, really far down the list of "best coaches ever" (maybe even behind Tennessee coach Pat Summit, the coach that women's basketball seems to love the most).  If he could have put up the same numbers (735-122, 7 National Championships) in the men's game, he may be considered the best coach ever.  But he didn't, so he won't.  Sorry Geno.