The White Devil in Basketball
Jeff Passan might have written the previously unwriteable. He invoked race when discussing basketball, only he noted that the it is the white kid that is being picked on. And the thing is…he is correct.
My NCAA basketball tournament memory goes back to Kentucky v. Duke in 1992 (sorry, jubbo). Laettner’s shot at the buzzer is burned into my memory and that is really the first time that I recognized the NCAA tournament (even though my memories of college and pro football, as well as baseball, go back much further). And, I remember hating Laettner for some reason.
Fight the Power! (big ups to Getty Images)
Jump ahead a few years to another Duke player (and now Orlando Magic guard) J.J. Redick. Maybe it is a Duke thing, but there seemed to be a lot of hate for Redick and his arrogance. Furthermore, another whitey, Adam Morrison, was also hated and it seemed to be more for his “enthusiasm” than his scoring.
And then recently it has been Tyler Hansbrough. Yet, another ACC guy, Psycho T is hated for his hustle play and, well, playing for North Carolina.
These players do have something in common — they are crackers. And this is not to state that only white players are hated; there is plenty of hate for some black players — Stephon Marbury for his antics and Kobe Bryant because he is better than you…just to name a few. But there does seem to be a pattern of hate thrown at many white players in basketball. And not that I have any scientific proof or anything, but I think I know why — because they are different.
Think of the quarterback position in football. This is a position that is dominated by white players. Yet, more recently, there has been a growing number of black quarterbacks, thus disrupting the tradition norm of the white leader of a football team. And although it is not necessarily hatred that is thrown at players like Donovan McNabb or Vince Young or David Garrard or Michael Vick (well, Vick gets hatred, but that is because of other factors), there is often heavier criticism and stereotypes cast upon those players. The stereotype is that these types of quarterbacks are not true “pocket passers” and should play in other positions (even though some black quarterbacks are pure pocket passers that do not scramble well — see Byron Leftwich). The point is that black quarterbacks are seen as different and therefore out of place. The same type of argument can be made for white basketball players.
It would be an understatement to claim that basketball whose numbers (in terms of players) are dominated by African-American players, at least at the NBA level. While there are certainly many white players playing basketball, the rarity of top-level talent among white players makes them the anomaly. Therefore, white players stand out and can be seen as “out of place.” Comments about Steve Nash having a “black man’s game” and other comparisons of white players playing like their black counterparts only reinforce such othering.
Even when there is a positive story about a white player, there tends to be questions regarding his skills. Ben Woodside of North Dakota State put on a show against the Kansas Jayhawks on Friday. Despite his solid performance, there are many comments on message boards that question his ability to play against better competition (read black players) or note that he is over-rated (I believe Sherron Collins of Kansas would disagree). White players are either over-rated (Woodside, or for some Hansbrough) or they have a black game (Nash).
We suck! And by "we" I mean white players.
OR, they are thugs. Remember ol’ White Chocolate Jason Williams, whose nickname envokes that “black man’s game” mentality (granted, he had embraced it himself). Or more recently — and back to Passan’s article — Eric Devendorf. He is labeled “thuggish” because of his tattoos and his brash demeanor. But Devendorf seems to differ from Williams, at least according to Passan, in that he enjoys being at school and seems to just being playing the game. And isn’t that what fans want — a player with enthusiasm and gets into the game and shows emotion? Certainly Syracuse fans love Devendorf, but fans of other teams cannot stand him. But really, up until the Big East tourney, did the country even know who this white boy even was? I believe Dan Patrick made that point when discussing the most disliked players in (college) basketball — Devendorf’s tournament exposure probably led to him being hated. Ironically, four of the top five most dislike players on the Dan Patrick poll question were white players (the only non-white was Hasheem Thabeet).
What this all points to is the fact that white players are considered to be out of place on a basketball court. There is a certain “style” of basketball that is played (i.e., the black man’s game) and white players are not typically associated with that style. If they are, then they are playing like they are black or they are “thugs.” If they do not play that way, then they are overrated. Look at the so-called European style of basketball (which is also applied to players from South America). It is considered to be soft or “fundamental” with a lot of flopping. Yet, it is mainly the white players that this is applied to, as you do not hear the same labels used for players like Tony Parker, Nene, or Thabo Sefalosha (at least I do not hear that).
Certainly there is plenty of racism and stereotypes hurled at black basketball players. Comments just as “street balling” and “playground basketball” hint at notions that black players cannot play “controlled” or fundamental basketball with set plays. But there also seems to be a certain set of racial stereotypes leveled against white players. White players are perceived as not having the same skills as their counterparts and, if they do, then they have an identity constructed for them — one that is not “white.”
Rush Limbaugh was correct when he noted that there was a desire for a black quarterback to succeed. Although he was going after his favorite target (the “drive-by” media), his point carries over to basketball’s desire for a white player to re-emerge and succeed like the old days. However, instead of white hopes, it seems that basketball is filled with white devils.
March Blandness?
So the real field is set and in less than an hour now the “madness” will begin. Who is going to be the “Cinderella”? Who will be the underachieving number one seed? Who will be the team that destroys everyone’s brackets? Who cares!?
Do not get me wrong — I will watch the games of the NCAA tournament, especially the first weekend (and especially tomorrow; better games, I think). But there is something about this year’s field that just leaves be feeling ho-hum about the entire thing. I was not enthusiastic to fill out a bracket. I just glanced at the match-up and felt nauseated. The Texas-Minnesota game just makes me want to stab myself in the eye with a rusted coat-hanger. Two of the four traditional upset matchups — 5 v. 12 — contains a power conference team at the 12 spot…is that really an upset? This year’s tournament has left me feeling disenchanted. And despite the fact that I have written a couple of posts on the tourney, I have really not cared as much compared to past seasons.
Ah, but when the sun rose this morning, so did my excitement. And despite the fact that I really did not perceive any big upsets initially, the more I thought about some of the games, the more I thought that it could be an upset here or there. And it got me motivated. So now that the tournament begins today [to hell with the "You're Not Good Enough" game that was played on Tuesday...not the start of the tourney], I am excited about the games. And granted, maybe I would be more excited had it not been for the fact that I have been busy with work and research. But, nevertheless, I am pumped. I need a beer!
So, not that anyone REALLY cares about my brackets and the way I see things playing out, I am going to discuss it anyway because, dammit, this is our blog where we are lucky to have three random readers in a day.
SOUTH:
I start with the South because everyone seems to end with the South…strange. I initially had no #12 seed knocking off a #5 seed, until it became more apparent that Illinois point guard Chester Frazier would not play against the Hilltoppers. So I ended up taking Western Kentucky with that upset. Another thing that I have had is the 6 v. 11 games being this year’s “5 v. 12.” I had three upsets initially, then switched another one to have all four 11-seeds winning. But I question this game between Arizona State and Temple. Dionte Christmas for the Owls is a solid player, but I have to wonder if other players will step up if the Sun Devils are able to shut him down. In the end, I am sticking with the Owls. Michigan over Clemson — the Tigers have struggled down the stretch, losing to god-awful Georgia Tech in the ACC tourney. Butler will knock off an over-rated LSU team. Gonzaga will make the deep run, taking out a questionable North Carolina team before losing to Oklahoma in the Regional Final. SOUTH WINNER: Oklahoma Sooners.
MIDWEST:
I really, really, really like the North Dakota State Bison against Kansas. Four seniors in the starting lineup, Woodside is a solid point guard (conspicuously absent from the Bob Cousy Award list of finalist) and if the Bison can get hot from downtown, then they could take out the defending champions. Key word is “could,” as I think Kansas will advance. But I would not be surprised by the upset. Dayton is my choice for the “Cinderella” team that will go deep. Their 6-11 game with West Virginia was the 6-11 I ended up changing (to have the 11 pull the upset). The thing that concerns me with the Flyers is that they do not score a lot of points. But their defense is impressive and I think will carry them to the Regional Finals. Utah will get by Arizona and I am unsure about Siena this year, but not sold on Ohio State either. In the end, Louisville will prevail with a rather easy road. MIDWEST WINNER: Louisville Cardinals.
EAST:
The most boring region, in my opinion, as the only “upset” I see (and picked it the moment the matchup was announce [because of Eric Maynor, my choice for the Cousy Award among the finalists, at least]) is the same one everyone else seems to see — Virginia Commonwealth over UCLA. But I then have them going out to Villanova. Other “upsets” would be FSU over Xavier and ‘Nova over Duke. In the regional finals, I have Pittsburgh getting revenge for an earlier loss to the Wildcats of Villanova and moving on to the Final Four. EAST WINNER: Pittsburgh Panthers.
WEST:
I like Mississippi State because of the outrageous shot-blocking ability of Jarvis Varnado (who I think is averaging close to five swats a game) and their balanced scoring. BUT, I do not like teams that make a surprising run through their conference tourney. It seems that they usually bow out early. That stated, I am sticking with my first reaction and taking the Bulldogs as the only SEC school to get a win. I really like Cornell as a team…I just wish they had a better match-up. It should be a fun game with Missouri though. Much like the ASU-Temple game, I have started questioning the Utah State upset over Marquette. But I am sticking with it! The game that I have debated the most is Missouri-Memphis. I absolutely love Missouri’s style of basketball and I think that is why I initially had them going to the Final Four. Really, it is a toss-up where I have gone back and forth between those two teams. Either way, the Tigers will knock of Connecticut in the Regional Final. In the end, I think that reality wins over my gut instinct as Missouri is a streaky team. WEST WINNER: Memphis Tigers.
So, my Final Four will be Louisville, Pittsburgh, Memphis and Oklahoma. I will revisit this in a couple of weeks once the Final Four is set.
As for now…just a couple of minutes until Madness.
Jubbo’s Final Four
Jubbo here. Hi all. But enough with the pleasantries.
Louisville Memphis Pitt Oklahoma
Louisville Pitt
Pitt
I agree. Now, your thoughts on my hair?
Thank you Post-Gazette
Abolish the “Opening Round” Game
No one buys that tonight’s game between Alabama State and Morehead State is the “opening round.” Hell, according to the very scientific poll conducted by Dan Patrick, more than 70 percent of his listeners do not believe that the tournament begins tonight. I agree with them. Nothing against the Hornets and Eagles, it does not start tonight. No matter what the NCAA tries to tell people, the play-in game does not register on anyone’s tourney radar. Sure, in reality it begins tonight. But it is like the beginning of college football — sure there are games between Tennessee-Martin and Austin Peay on the last Thursday in August, but for most fans the season kicks off on the Saturday before Labor Day.
Look at how it is structured in terms of brackets. In the case of this year, there is not an extra bracket for ASU and MSU on most brackets; typically it will show the top overall seed (in this case Louisville) and both teams separated by a slash (Alabama St/Morehead St). And I am not sure that anyone makes a prediction on tonight’s game…except for compulsive gamblers. I know that it is not available on Yahoo! Sports, while ESPN has a shameful “TBA” in the space for either the Hornets or Eagles. And, if it is the opening round, then why are BOTH teams a sixteenth seed; why isn’t one a 16 and one a 17? Well…that is because IT IS A DAMN PLAY-IN GAME!!!!!
I understand the reasoning for the play-in game. The NCAA wanted to maintain the 34 at-large bids after the WAC downsized (the once mega-conference in terms of number of schools split in half, with a new conference — the Mountain West Conference — being formed out of most of the “better” teams). Since the MWC would need an automatic bid, it would take away from the at-large pool. So, the NCAA expanded…by one spot!? WHAT!? The at-large bid that the MWC took would obviously go to the “last team in”; this year it would have been Arizona. I am trying to run various tournaments through my head, but is it not common for the last time in to be a mediocre team from a “power conference”? It was Villanova (i believe) last year and they did make a run. Before that, it was Illinois; then Bradley (a thirteenth seed, who made it to the elite eight); then UCLA; then UTEP. Maybe ridding the tourney of that at-large bid would not be a bad idea as it seems to go to a team from a power or good conference and only perform marginally well.
But here is what needs to be abolished — the play-in game. Both Alabama State and Morehead State should be playing on either Thursday or Friday, not on Tuesday! So, one less at-large bid! Yes, it might take out a Butler or a Dayton, but it could also take out an undeserving “power” school like Arizona and Wisconsin.
Yeah! We're Number 64!!!
Let’s be clear — I am not stating that ASU or MSU would do anything in the tournament. Both would be a 15th or 16th seed and would go home really quickly. But Alabama State did what they were supposed to do in order to make it to the “Big Dance” — they won not only their regular season title, but also won the SWAC tourney (hence, the automatic bid). Morehead State was not as solid, but they did what they had to do — win the Ohio Valley tourney. Both the Hornets and Eagles had to work harder and essentially do more to make it in. On the other hand, Arizona and Wisconsin just had to play average basketball overall in order to get in the tournament. Hell, Wisconsin lost SIX IN A ROW at one point, including to Big Ten bottom feeders Iowa and Northwestern!!! Arizona did lost four in a row, but those were not all bad losses. However, Arizona was carried by name, the conference, and wins against teams (namely Kansas) that were not the same team as they were down the stretch. Get these teams out of there!!!
Another problem I have is that the teams in the play-in game do not seem like the worst teams. Sometimes, it is the teams with the worst records (I remember seeing teams with losing records in the play-in game), but it does not always have the two “worst” teams. For example, this year, Morehead State might deserve to be in the play-in, but Alabama State is probably better than UT-Chattanooga or Cal State-Northridge.
Here is the biggest problem I have — as I stated in my previous post, the play-in game is a slap in the face for both of those teams. Yes, technically one of those teams will get a tournament win on their resume (the only way a 16-seed will win, I guess) and they get some national exposure. But it basically states that neither of these two teams belong in the tournament, but are only there because of that silly “automatic bid” thing.
If the NCAA must have the play-in game, then I think it needs to be tweaked. And here is what can happen. If it has to be 65 teams, the play-in game should be between the last two teams in (i.e., at-large bids) and NOT automatic team bids unless there is an automatic bid team with a losing record. So Arizona and Wisconsin…enjoy your play-in game. And thank god one of them will be gone before people care about the actual tournament.
Or carry that one step further and expand the field to 68 teams. And, again, the play-in games are bubble teams. So you could add in San Diego State, St. Mary’s, and either Auburn or Creighton. Bring in the last five in (likely Wisconsin, Arizona, Dayton, Michigan and Maryland) and let those teams earn their way in. Alabama State and Morehead State earned their spot already.
At least, with this method, the play-in game could have more meaning and perhaps be really considered the opening round!
Number One Seeds and Snubs in the NCAA Tourney
<sigh>. Why didn’t Alabama play Florida in the BCS Corporate Title Game this past season? Or Ohio State take on Michigan in the 2006 season’s version? What am I talking about? Three number one seeds from the Big East!? Are you kidding!?!? It seems as though the NCAA wants to see the Big East tournament again…along with ol’ reliable North Carolina. Essentially that is what is being stated; if all four #1′s win again, then it will be a Big East party.
And spare me with the Memphis being a number two is just as good as a number one (and that they are the fifth overall since Connecticut is the fourth overall). It is a slap in the face of Memphis to have them NOT ONLY be a number two, but to have a less deserving team be the number one in their own region! PLUS, Missouri was also slighted with a number three seed and will likely give Memphis their toughest test. In fact, I have Missouri knocking out Memphis. (My bracket was filled out by Matt Jones). Memphis is in the Region of Doom and this set-up proves the uselessness of the polls.
As for snubs, I am tired of hearing about St. Mary’s and the fact that they were not the same after the injury Patty Mills. First off, it proves that they are a one-dimensional team that relies to heavily on Mills (I know they had Diamon Simpson and Omar Samhan, but it was clear they were not the same team afterwards). Yet, people harp on that they are the biggest snub. But why is Davidson not receiving the same attention? They were in a similar situation as once Stephen Curry was injured; they just were not the same. Davidson played a tougher non-conference schedule (if you ask me). St. Mary’s was carried by a slighty stronger conference due primarily to Gonzaga. I do think that the struggles without Curry proves Davidson rely to heavily on Curry. But if people are going to argue for St. Mary’s because one should take Mills’ injury into account, then the same should be made for Davidson.
The biggest snubs to me were San Diego State and Auburn. San Diego State had an RPI of 34 — better than Marquette, Texas A&M, LSU, Cal, Texas, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Maryland, Boston College, and Arizona. That’s eleven teams!!!!!!! Are you telling me that SDSU is not better than at least ONE of those teams!? Their strength of schedule was better than UCLA, Clemson, Wake Forest, Marquette, Texas A&M, LSU, California and Boston College…just to name a few. What likely doomed the Aztecs was the fact that they lacked a signature win, but yet again what is the point of having a strength ranking like RPI if it does not reward teams ranked highly in it!!! And Auburn was a hotter team down the stretch than certainly Wisconsin or Minnesota. And if there had to be another Big Ten team, it should have been Penn State who had a better conference record than Minnesota and Michigan and split the series with both teams.
Teams in that should not be there — Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. I think Arizona got in on name and early wins over teams that were not the same as those playing late in the season (Gonzaga and Kansas). In fact, I think that Michigan and Arizona were both rewarded for early season wins, whereas the same rubric was not used for a team like St. Mary’s. Wisconsin and Minnesota struggled down the stretch, which usually warrants punishment and a team not making the tourney. Yet, here they are with their really boring styles of basketball!
Last bit of bickering is the play-in game. First, stop calling it the “opening round”; it is a play-in game to go get slaughtered by the top seed overall. It basically says to the teams, “Neither of you are good enough to even be in the tournament, but since we have to accept you because of silly ‘automatic bids,’ we will have an opening round game.” I hate this concept of 65 teams and think that it is a huge slap in the face for those conferences and those two teams. And, except for the first play-in game, there has always been one HBCU team in this match-up. Alabama State is representing the SWAC this year in the “You’re Not Good Enough” game. Of course Morgan State, the other HBCU coming from the MEAC, is a 15th-seed. Good luck.
Overall, after perusing the brackets and seedings a couple of times, there is nothing really thrilling about this year’s tournament. A lot of ho-hum match-ups with some questionable seedings. But overall, in terms of the teams that are there and where they are seeded, I have no real qualms.
Breakdown of the regions and matchups later.
Big Ups to FSU and OSU
I just have to say “thank you” to THE Florida State University and THE Ohio State University for proving my point — debating the number one seeds before all games are played is ridiculous. If only Tulsa (who must’ve still been celebrating their victory over UAB) and Syracuse had stepped their game up…
LINK (or read below): Making Sense Out of Number One Seeds
On that note, I think this gives Pittsburgh Michigan State’s number one seed. I still think UNC will get a number one seed (likely fourth overall) with maybe Memphis getting the top overall (?). Doubtful…the committee will likely give Louisville the top overall, but it is not as though that really matters. I also think that Missouri will likely be a two-seed, perhaps ahead of Oklahoma (even though the Tigers had a relatively easy run to the Big 12 title). As for UNC, I mean, the committee has GOT to have an ACC team in there. Over the past 20 years, there have been only four occasions where an ACC team was NOT a number one seed (2003, 1996, 1990, 1989), and it is usually either UNC or Duke. Well, I guess Duke could get it…
Making Sense Out of Number One Seeds
Selection Sunday is, well, Sunday. And yet, the sports talkers are all about some college basketball in terms of who should be a number one seed.
First off, I am already tired of this garbage. It has been going on for weeks, but for obvious reasons has picked up since the “major” conferences completed their regular seasons. I wanted to write about it earlier, but other things popped up first. Nevertheless, it seems illogical to name (and that is what they are doing more so than predicting) number one seeds before all games have been played. The fact that two of the perceived number one seeds lost yesterday speaks to how moronic it is to name number one seeds so early. Yes, it is all speculative and it is for debate at bars and the water cooler. But it has seemed more ridiculous this season than in previous years.
What has disturbed me the most is some attempting to make a valid argument that the Big East deserves THREE of the four number one seeds. Huh!? Granted, the Big East is certainly the best basketball conference in the country (at least in terms of its top teams). But three? And this is before what happened yesterday. How do you figure? Essentially, Pittsburgh won the right to a number one seed by defeating Connecticut twice! Louisville earned the right by winning the Big East. UConn’s two losses to Pitt should eliminate them from the discussion. SO, at best, the Big East deserves two top seeds…
"You're not really that stupid, are ya?"
…well, at least before what happened on Thursday. Even though I like the fact that a bottom feeder can rise up in the conference tourney and make it to the “Big Dance,” I do think that such tourneys punish some teams that were consistent throughout the season (see Davidson, Vermont and Weber State). Nevertheless, UConn’s loss meant that they lost their last two. Furthermore, they finished third in conference and lost in their first game at MSG. If a conference championship loss can knock you out of the BCS title game in football, then an early conference tourney exit should knock you out of a number one seed. Way to earn your number two seed, Huskies! As for Pitt, I am more inclined to still give them a number one seed if only by the fact that I would have given them the number one overall (had they won the Big East, or just based on regular season). So, maybe they still get the number four overall (still a number one seed). Louisville is still on their way to earning their seed.
So, how should the number one seedings be handed out. For quite some time, I have felt that it should be based on the Top 25 poll. What is the point of having such a poll if it really has no bearing on the seedings. I made a similar argument in 2006 that George Washington was an eighth seed despite being 14th in the AP poll (should have been somewhere in the four or five seeds) and having one regular season loss. They were punished for losing in their conference tournament (hmm……). So, if GW was an eighth seed, why have them ranked so high? The polls are irrelevent.
So, why not use the polls. Yes, if you use the polls from the end of the regular season and ignore the conference tourneys, UConn would be a number one seed. But it still gets you only two number one seeds from the Big East — Pitt and UConn. The other two would be North Carolina and Memphis. I could live with that.
Ah…but Memphis? Memphis gets the George Washington treatment. They received it last year. Many wondered if they deserved a number one seed because of the weakness of C-USA (they were the only C-USA member in the NCAA tourney last season). Well, they should have dispelled the myth that their weak conference puffed their record by making it to the title game. But apparently that has not happened. Keep in mind, it is not as though Memphis is playing in a historically weak conference. They did not suddenly rise up and dominate in the same way a Gonzaga has done with the West Coast Conference. The mighty Big East raided C-USA of a few of its top basketball programs, namely Louisville, Cincinnati and Marquette. So, you cannot hold that against the Tigers. Besides, considering that they have not lost a conference game since the 2005-06 season is amazing no matter what conference they play in.
I agree with Seth Davis, who said that we should not look at conferences when number one seeds are debated. While he was making the argument for three teams from the Big East, I think that should be applied to Memphis as well. All three of the Tigers losses are quality losses — Xavier, Syracuse and Georgetown (at least as the time was “quality”). If we are going to be “conference blind” and not attempt to be geographically equal (i.e., ensure a west coast team will be the number one in the West bracket), then Memphis deserves one of the four.
So, which teams do I think should take the number one seeds. Simple: North Carolina, Memphis, Louisville and Michigan State. A-ha!!! Even though I hate that the conference tourney injured Pittsburgh, the fact remains that they still lost. Michigan State is facing a similar situation to Memphis in that the Spartans are playing in a down Big Ten; not their fault. Granted, had I written this on Wednesday it would be Pitt instead of MSU. But as it is, Spartans get the number one. Twos would be UConn, Pitt, Duke, Oklahoma and threes would likely be Gonzaga, Missouri, Wake and Washington. I am not going to venture any further.
Of course, that could all change tomorrow if Florida State, Tulsa, Syracuse or Ohio State have anything to say about it.
The Ridiculous Nature of MMA
Okay, so I am writing on a sports blog about a non-sport item. But since this story appeared on a sports website, I guess I can make the parallel.
Apparently at a recent MMA event (UFC 96 or 4,273 or whatever) a guy by the name of Matt Hamill KO’ed the holy hell out of some poor sap named Mark Munoz. The knockout came courtesy of a kick, but that does not matter; it could have been a monkey wrench. That is beside the point. The point is Hamill hammered the consciousness out of Munoz for the win.
Now, apparently this cat Hamill was fighting in front of his hometown (or at least his home state) and was estatic of his ass-kicking of Munoz. However, the knockout was so “vicious” that Munoz was being treated for the injury while Hamill auditioned for Dancing with the Stars. They even “almost” brought out the stretcher for this loser Munoz.
Apparently many “expects” in MMA found Hamill’s antics over-the-top and disrespectful. While some have wondered if they should give Hamill a pass because of his “disability” (Hamill is deaf…which strangely enough does NOT affect his fighting ability, nor his intellect), others have noted that Hamill knew Munoz was in “seriously bad shape” due to the number of people surrounding the fallen loser.
Smells like teen spirit, doesn't it?
Ok……what the hell!? MMA is a “sport” (sic) that sells itself of people getting knocked the f*** out with brutal kicks to the head and fists of fury on a guy pinned against the “cage.” Any ad for MMA that runs on television is filled with guys getting knocked unconscious before they hit the mat. It sells itself on the violent aspect of it. Hell, they advertise a “knockout of the night” typically that will show someone going comotose. When searching for a clip of the knockout, I came across another match where a guy uppercutted his opponent, essentially knocking him out. The cat then pounced on the fallen loser and got off three or four unguarded shots to the face before the referee finally stepped in; all the while the crowds is going nuts! This is the kind of stuff that MMA wants to promote. Hamill was playing his role for the betterment of MMA in general, and the UFC — it is good for business! Hell, it got me to write about it.
The “outcry” over the Hamill celebration speaks to the ridiculous and hypocritical natural of MMA as a “sport” (sic). Dude knocks out his opponent, which is what he is supposed to do; celebrates his KO towards the fans, which is what anyone would do in his situation; and the MMA “media” blasts him for doing essentially what the business wants its fighters/entertainers to do. I guarantee that fans were not that upset; they probably loved the knock out and fed on the celebration. Yes, there was an injury, but this is a competition that is predicated on violence, pain (and pain thresholds) and essentially creating injuries. Furthermore, it was not like Hamill was standing over Munoz doing pelvic thrusts and saying “Can you hear me now?” He celebrated towards the fans. Admonishing Hamill for that is akin to admonishing the Dutch team for celebrating its (second) win over the Dominican Republic.
This is one reason why I do not watch MMA; the hypocrisy.
NOTE: before some slapper tries to claim that I am an MMA-hater (or that I hate MMA because I love boxing [there tends to be a polarized fan base when it comes to the two]), understand the argument first off. And second, it should be clear I am no fan of MMA. This is not to say that I have not given it a chance (several occasions, including watching UFC PPVs). Nor am I stating that it does not possess a legitimate entertainment value. But I just have not enjoyed any match that I have seen. It is mostly a lot of boring moments with a few spurts of excitement. I feel the same way about boxing; not a fan of boxing for the most part. Both MMA and boxing bore me and while I have given it several chances, instances like this turn me away from it even more.
’09 DR Baseball Team = ’02 US Basketball Team
Double Dutch; Dutch Oven; Holland Crap!
How about, Dominican Disaster?
Put that in your Dutch oven!
Nothing against what the Netherlands team accomplished as, much like my observation on the Chinese team, they played fundamental baseball with strong pitching and sound defense (with the exception of Kingsale’s error…but he redeemed himself). It is not entirely flukey as the Dutch baffled Puerto Rico as well. But this was just as much about the Dominican Republic team not clicking and playing up to their individual abilities as it was the Dutch doing (almost) everything right.
The DR team was loaded with Major League talent, as documented numerous times by sports media. Superstars such as David Ortiz, Hanley Ramirez, Miguel Tejada and Jose Reyes. Good position players like Jose Guillen, Adrian Beltre, Miguel Olivio and speedster Willy Taveras. And quality pitchers such as Ubaldo Jimenez (who was dominant last night), Johnny Cueto, Edinson Volquez and even Pedro Martinez. But while the lineup was loaded with talented and proven MLB’ers, that did not make the team the best in the Invitational. Chemistry is important and despite their victory over Panama, the DR just did not seem to mesh (outside of the pitching).
It is reminicent to the way the United States used to construct its men’s basketball teams. While in 1992 the U.S. could just throw together basketball legends (and even Christian Laettner) and beat anyone, the same formula did not work as well once the rest of the basketball playing world caught up with the U.S. This was evident in the 2002 “disaster” at the World Basketball Championships (in Indianapolis), when the U.S. team lost three times (Argentina, Yugoslavia and Spain) on their way to an embarrassing sixth-place finish. It was not the U.S. team was loaded with the top talent, but that the U.S. believed that could slap together a team and everyone would bow down to the glory of the NBA and the U.S. Problem was that other teams had very good talent and the Spanish and Argentinian sides were much better than in previous years, producing NBA-quality players (Yugoslavia/Croatia/Serbia/Bosnia & Herzegovina have had players in the NBA for some time). And, the chemistry that other countries had developed through years of playing together was lacking on the U.S. side. It showed and after the 2004 Summer Olympics, the U.S. restructured its basketball program and it paid off with the gold medal in the 2008 Summer Games.
The Dominican Republic has a proud baseball tradition and has produced a ton of talent, many making it to the Major Leagues. It often wins the Caribbean Series and is the major producer of baseball talent in the region (primarily due to the political conditions with regards to Cuba). So this loss is certainly an embarrassment. And the twin losses to the Netherlands is less like the U.S. three basketball losses in 2002 (as those three countries clearly had top-tier talent) and more like Chaminade’s men’s basketball team upsetting Virginia in 1982. So it is a low point in DR baseball history. But they will likely rebound next time around (whenever the next WBI takes place…likely in four years) and hopefully for their squad they learned the lesson — chemistry over superstars.
Well, at least I have my million dollar contract.
Pics from ESPN.com and Getty Images. big ups!
The Misnomer of the World Baseball Classic
Let’s take the words of Adam Dunn from The Late Show (with David Letterman)’s Top Ten Reasons to Watch the World Baseball Classic…
You’ll be part of a cherished baseball tradition dating all the way back to 2006.
Thank you Mr. Dunn. I hope that he delivers at the plate for the Expos — oops, team in Washington, DC — as well as he delivered that line.
But Adam is correct. The “Classic” is a glorious tournament that does date back all the way…to……..2006? I agree with Crumb, what is up with the “Classic” in World Baseball Classic?
Yes, there already exist a Baseball World Cup. And the World Series is another misnomer already appropriated by Major League Baseball. They could have utilized World Baseball Championship, similar to the FIBA-sanctioned World Basketball Championship…but “Classic,” I suppose, harkens to the historic game that has been played for over a century in baseball hotspots like the United States, Japan and…China? South Africa?
So we have sixteen teams and…they qualify how? They really don’t. They are simple selected. It is predetermined. What is this — the BCS? Well, I suppose the teams have to be choosen (the same 16 this year is the same 16 from 2006) because it is not a dominant sport in many parts of the world. [While basketball might not be as popular as soccer, there are plenty of basketball leagues throughout the world; not necessarily the same with baseball]. But no real qualifying for this “Classic.” Hell, even cricket has qualifying for its World Cup, even though it is primarily a Commonwealth sport and you know in the end the finalists will include India and Pakistan, as well as the Aussies and Brits.
Let’s call this what it is — The World Baseball Marketing Tool! Or, to not be so cynical — the World Baseball Invitational.
—————–
OTHER OBSERVATIONS FROM THE WBI:
- The Dutch Antilles — errrrrrr…The Netherlands — beating the Dominican Republic, then holding their own against Puerto Rico was a shock. Australia’s offensive explosion against Mexico was surprising. Italy knocking out Canada was a “wow!” moment. China actually winning needed a double-take. All of this points to the fact that perhaps Bud Selig’s plan to further internationalize baseball is working. At least to some degree. Think of the 1996 and 2000 Olympics men’s basketball tournaments. While the 1992 US team was far and away the dominant team, the gap was closed a bit in 1996 and significantly closed in 2000. While there was no one dominant team in the 2006 WBI, there was a clear gap between the first tier and second tier. That seems to have closed significantly in the past three years. Granted, Italy has players who are U.S.ians but with Italian heritage, and the Dutch team is carried by Caribbean players, but inroads have been made. And while South Africa still lags behind (despite MLB teams developing players there), other countries have stepped up.
- China’s improvement is noteworthy. They were destroyed in 2006. But in the 2008 Olympics and this year’s WBI, China has displayed that they can play with the big boys…at least a bit. Sure, Korea killed them, but they played very well against defending champ Japan, and outplayed Taiwan to gain the victory. I did not watch the China-Japan game, but I caught most of the China-Taiwan game. China’s game was fundamentally sound. They did the little things well — defense and pitching. Timely hits from ABC Ray Chang and China looked decent. Perhaps it is coming around for them.
- And Taiwan was hurt not only by the absence of MLB’ers Wang Chien-Ming and Kuo Hong-Chih, but also by the fact that the Chinese Professional League did not release many of their players. Countries like the U.S. can manage if some players are not released, but Taiwan needed those home-grown players. Without them, Taiwan looked very amateur and were perhaps the worst team in the WBI.
- Yu Darvish is nice. I still am not sure if I believe him when he claimed that he wants to stay in Japan. It is hard not to believe that he wants to test himself against MLB’ers. He already has a Japan Series title. It would be interesting to see what happens with him in the future. That stated, I do not even think he is the best pitcher on the Japanese staff — or at least not the one most likely to jump to the MLB (soon). That is either Sugiuchi Toshiya of the SoftBank Hawks, or Tanaka Masahiro of the Ratuken Golden Eagles. [Although, Saito Kazumi and Wada Tsuyoshi are also very good pitchers not on the Japan roster -- both, are actually teammates of Sugiuchi. I think one of those could jump soon].
- The U.S. team looked dominant. But certainly beatable. I like the team mix — good combination of speed, power, role players and leaders. But I still think Korea and Cuba are the favorites (even though both are in the same second-round pool).
I Stand Corrected [Owens to the Bills]
Well, one of the teams that I had randomly chosen as a place that T.O. would not go ended up being his destination. Granted, as the news developed throughout the day on Thursday, it became apparent that most teams were not interested in Owens. While the Raiders, the Patriots and the 49ers seemed to be the only teams that were interested, Buffalo stepped up and took the chance.
T.O.'s other choice was the Seinajoki Crocodiles of the European Football League.
It is a one year deal and I do not think that it will go beyond that in Buffalo/Toronto. But if the trend holds up, it could work out very well for both the Bills and for T.O. For Buffalo, they get a receiver who can still play the position at a top level. He will take pressure off of Lee Evans and Marshawn Lynch and while he is likely to add some pressure to quarterback Trent Edwards (feeling compelled to get Owens the ball), T.O. will also help open up the field and become a big target to go to. Considering that Owens tends to play nice for the first season, it could mean a good season in Buffalo. For Owens, it is a chance to redeem himself, if possible. He shows not only that he can get along with others [at least for one season], but also prove he can still be an elite wideout.
On the other hand, he can end up being a cancer again and ruining an improving Bills squad. He could stunt Edwards’ progression as a quarterback by demanding the ball more and criticizing him as he has done with Garcia, McNabb and Romo. He could also disrupt Evans’ development as he is becoming an elite wide receiver himself. And instead of Buffalo moving forward in the 2009 season, Owens could cause the Bills to regress.
I am somewhat disappointed because I have started to like the Bills. But I do think that if it is indeed a one-and-done situation, I think Owens will play nice and been a benefit to the Bills. I am sure that Buffalo is not where he really wants to be, so Owens will approach this as an audition of sorts. So he will step up his game and the Bills and T.O. will both benefit in the end.
At least, I hope.
[big ups to the New York Times for the picture].
See Ya, Punk! [T.O. cut!!!]
Teague did to T.O. what the Cowboys should have done long ago.
“Absolutely speechless.”
That is what Stephen A. Smith is reporting on the fact that the Dallas Cowboys finally cut away its parasite — Terrell Owens. Somewhere, George Teague is smiling.
It is about time but it should not be surprising to T.O. Could he not see the writing on the wall!? Owens is a tremendously talented player. He will obviously land somewhere. That is a given and the overstatement of the decade. He is not in the same boat as Barry Bonds. However, he is essentially a cancer to any locker room. It is not some hate for Owens, but a trend based on his stays with the 49ers, Eagles and now the Cowboys. A path of destruction has been laid wherever Owens has played.
He will obviously want to play with an “elite” quarterback. So he will not be going to a team like Miami or Minnesota or St. Louis or Buffalo. And while he would certainly love to be in a place like New England [Brady and Moss and Owens would be interesting and potentially dominant], I am not sure that Brady or the “Hoodie” would stand for T.O.’s antics [and not enough passes to go around -- T.O. would end up hating Wes Welker like he did with Jason Whitten].
A team that would make since is Kansas City, but I doubt it (not an “elite” QB). BUT, if Cassel can replicate his performance from last season, then a Cassel-Owens combo would be similar to Cassel-Moss from last year. And with a young team, T.O. would be a centerpiece even with Tony Gonzalez and Dwayne Bowe. And it could be a surprise in the AFC West. At least for a season…then he would whine and bitch and moan and become the cancer that he is.
Jerry Jones might have pulled a “Nick Saban” by stating that Owens was going to be a Cowboy. But Owens was wrestling with the decision that seemed obvious to everyone else. No matter how talented Terrell Owens is, he is not worth the drama and problems associated with what he brings. The NFL is more than just 60 minutes on Sunday [or Monday], and what happens off the field DOES affect what happens on the field. And no matter what numbers he put up on the field, the off-the-field garbage doomed Owens.
LINK: Teague Defends the Star
