NCAA bafoonery

First off, let me say I am not about to write anything I don't expect to be written in nearly every sports publication in the country tomorrow and the days following. But my feelings are probably stronger than the criticism the NCAA will take from most writers, in large part because college football largely fails to capture my excitement to begin with.
But, I don't see how anybody can still take seriously a system wherein debate reigns over the game itself. Regardless of who was selected along with Ohio St. (strongly considered a lock) for the BCS Championship game, 90 percent of the country was going to be upset. That is because there was not a single team, including Ohio St., who could clearly be seen as superior to the rest of the contenders. So the fans of the team that got selected, LSU as it turned out, and perhaps the other fans of the Southeastern Conference, were going to be the only ones happy about it. Meanwhile in Blacksburg, Lawrence, Morgantown, Athens, and Honolulu (and several other places) fans were going to be upset.
Speaking of Hawaii, this brings me to my most frequent point of contention with the supremely flawed NCAA bowl system. How can a team win every game on its schedule, and not have even an outside shot at a national title? You may say all you want that the teams Hawaii played were not as strong as the teams others played, and you can believe all you want that the Warriors were not among even the five best teams in the country. But to never give them the chance to prove themselves brings into question the mere plausibility or legitimacy of determining a national champion to begin with.
But this year, that is only my second-best point in favor of at least some form of a playoff. Yes, every undefeated team in Division I-A (please don't sue me for not calling it the Championship subdivision), regardless of their conference affiliation or schedule, should get a shot in a national tournament. Take in as well the remaining contenders as narrowed down by either the BCS points, or a committee. There will always be something to debate. It will never be flawless, but if we are debating over who the seventh and eighth best teams in the country are, isn't that better than debating who the first and second are and immediately eliminating everybody else from having a shot?
You could make a reasonable case for all of the following teams to be in such a tournament: Ohio St., LSU, Missouri, Kansas, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Georgia, USC, and Hawaii. That's a conservative list, which happens to be 9 teams. So somebody is going home unhappy. But by the current system, that unhappy team, which in my book would be either West Virginia or Georgia, didn't have any chance. So at the least we're giving six more teams a chance to prove it on the field.
The so-called championship game is now a joke. Whoever wins it will likely have more losses than Hawaii. They will not have proven definitively that they can beat all comers, because they will not have had a chance to face all of the aforementioned contenders.
It comes down to one simple guideline: subjective human opinion should not play such a huge role in determining who wins.
If not for the sacred principle of settling the game on the playing surface, what is the point of competitive sport to begin with. We might as well let teams work out, watch them scrimmage against themselves, and have a group of voters tell us who is going to play for the championship on August 15. At least then we wouldn't have to go through a meaningless season to ultimately come out unfulfilled and angry.

that other Division I team

The Hartford Hawks are saying "don't forget about us" a lot these days. It is understandable that the UConn program should by far garner the most attention state-wide, but the Hawks are often left trying to figure out why they should have to compete so much with CCSU as well. Simply said, the Blue Devils success has been primarily in the men's game, while Hartford has had even greater success in the women's game. Even in this state, men's basketball is more popular (although you could argue UConn womens' fans are more avid than the fans of the mens' program, though fewer in number).
But, things seem to be changing at Hartford. I attended their media day today for both programs, and I'm impressed with what I see. We all know what UConn legend Jennifer Rizzotti has done with the women, bringing them to three NCAA tournaments in nine years, going 30-2 in the conference over the last two seasons and pulling off an upset win in the NCAA first round two years ago.
But get used to the name Dan Leibovitz. He is the second-year coach of the mens' team, which finished well ahead of preseason projections last year. This year they were picked sixth by conference coaches, and Leibovitz once again said he believes they are better than that ... or the conference is extremely good.
Matt Straub and I spoke to both Leibovitz and senior captain Brian Glowiak of New Britain (look for Matt's story on Glowiak in the coming days). The theme of the discussions, as dictated by each of them separately, is that this is a much more unified, confident and well-prepared team than before.
Leibovitz is soft-spoken off the court. I haven't seen him on the court, but you can guess he learned something in his years as an assistant to fiery, longtime Temple coach John Chaney. But despite his calm demeanor, his delivery and presence demand your attention. You listen intently to what he has to say. He also seems genuine, something those who follow coaches will tell you is not always the case. But it is an attractive trait to recruits.
Add to that a beautiful gym on campus, that has undergone some renovations in recent years, and I like the direction this program is heading.
Then there are those women. Don't be surprised if this is Rizzotti's best team yet. After many felt they were snubbed last year by not receiving an at large bid to the NCAA tournament after they lost in their conference championship to UMBC, the Hawks have taken the right approach. They didn't complain, just beefed up their schedule to enormous lengths.
Hartford will face Kansas, Providence, UAB, BYU, UMass, UConn, St. John's, Michigan St., could face Hawaii and will face one of Kentucky/Minnesota/Texas/Virginia in the Wahine Classic in Hawaii. That non-conference schedule rivals any in the country, and dwarfs those of most "mid-major" programs.
And they're playing to win those games, not just show up for a loss. The Hawks return all-conference player Danielle Hood as well as key players in Jamie McCabe, Courtney Gomez, MaryLynne Schaeffer and Lisa Etienne. Add to the mix the return of forward Erica Beverley after a season-ending injury last year, and this team is loaded.
No wonder they were picked by the league coaches to finish first, something Rizzotti said is a challenge in itself.
Get out to West Hartford and see this team if you can. There's a very good chance they'll be playing in March one way or another, and they host the America East tournament this year, as they have each time they won it.
When she was hired, Rizzotti was the youngest coach in Division I. Now she's the veteran at her own school, and she and Leibovitz appear to have a good relationship. Rizzotti will further cement her status as the best possible future replacement for Geno Auriemma, of course barring Chris Dailey simply taking over the reins on her own. It must be nice for UConn to see a potential candidate so close to the program already.

time for prayer

When asked by those outside the state, particularly when I was in college in Massachusetts, to explain the fanaticism surrounding UConn basketball, my typical answer, somewhat sarcastic, was to say that the Huskies are the closest thing to a state religion. It was always only partially a joke.
With another season upon us, and being one of the avid fans, I am naturally excited. But there is a large amount of apprehension surrounding this year's team, particularly after last season's tremendous disappointment.
Let me first say that for the last eight months, since the Huskies played their final game of last season against Syracuse at Madison Square Garden, I have been among their more vocal supporters. I likened this year's team to those that followed up disappointing finishes in 1997 and 2001 with trips to the Elite Eight in 1998 and 2002. The 1997 squad in particular seemed an apropos comparison to last year's bunch.
That team, featuring freshmen Richard Hamilton, Kevin Freeman, and Jake Voskuhl, suffered a devastating blow in personnel when expected star Kirk King was suspended for NCAA violations for nearly the entire season. Sophomore point Ricky Moore was suspended for several games, and the young squad was left with one elder statesmen. Does anybody remember Monquencio Hardnett, who was a junior on that team and the oldest player of significance? What ensued was a year in which the Huskies could not hit the broad side of a barn with a jump shot, could not work the ball inside, and lost a majority of their games. But things went well late, Hamilton showed what he would become in future years in the NIT and the team rallied to the semifinals of that tournament.
What that team also did was play excellent defense, usually losing games close, but in the 50 or 60-point range.
Flash forward to last year. With the departure of seven key players from the 06 team, the Huskies again had no seniors on the roster, no juniors in fact. Sophomore Jeff Adrien was the "voice of experience". Worse than in 97, the Huskies had trouble throwing the ball in the ocean from the pier.
However, they played even better defense than that 97 team. In case you didn't notice, UConn ranked in the top ten teams in the country last year in defensive efficiency. They allowed an opponent to score 70 points only five times and 60 points a mere 11 times.
It was easy for me to believe that this team could improve its offense on a level comparable to the 1997-98 jump, which landed them back in the top ten the latter year. This team does not need to score many points to win. They don't need to be great on offense, just "not bad".
Surely the Huskies would be a lock to again reach the NCAA tournament and had a good chance to crack the top 25.
And then I heard about UConn's preseason scrimmage against Assumption (carrying the pride of my second home Worcester, Mass.) in which UConn needed a late surge to hold off the Division II opponent. A second game against Bryant was better, a 100-65 win, but that Assumption game haunts me.
This team appears to be once again inept on offense, perhaps detrimentally so. Is it possible that this team could squander a top ten defense with an inability to work as a team and shoot the ball for a second year?
Coach Calhoun still says he has faith in the ability of A.J. Price, but following his involvement in the now infamous laptop thefts two years ago, it is hard to root for him to do well, particularly with his penchant for spouting off at the mouth to the media. Win some games before bragging.
I'll say this. I still see the potential for some really good players here. I think Jerome Dyson, Hasheem Thabeet, Stanley Robinson, and yes, Price, could be NBA players some day (Price on reputation alone though, not on anything I've seen on the court). Adrien is a pre-season all-conference pick, and I like Doug Wiggins and Craig Austrie as role players.
But I now fear this team is still far away from being a legitimate contender in the Big East, and even farther away from competing nationally.
Pray with me Husky fans. It could be another long season. (We've still got the women though. I'll ramble on them some other night.)

hot topic

I'm sure by now many of you have been paying attention to the situation involving a rant by Oklahoma St. coach Mike Gundy regarding the column written by The Oklahoman's Jenni Carlson.
For those unaware, you can read Carlson's column here.
http://newsok.com/article/3131543
Gundy's reaction can be seen at espn.com among other places.
I support Gundy standing up for his players, as the article in question was a column criticizing the makeup of his quarterback. However, I disagree with Gundy's stance that Bobby Reid is a child, and therefore should not be criticized. I also take with a grain of salt anybody who says that college athletes should not be criticized because they are amateurs. The fact is Division I athletes usually receive a full scholarship to school, the approximate value of which is often above $100,000 over four years. It may not be a large "salary" but the fact is these players are paid, to an extent. Besides, they know what they are getting into when they accept that scholarship from a major program such as OSU. There is a lot of scrutiny.
With that said, Carlson's column, while an opinion piece, came off as stupid and a cheap attack. Her central point, insinuating that Reid's allowing his mother to feed him chicken outside the team bus after last week's loss represents some sort of character deficiency, is childish and lacks substance. I can't blame Gundy for getting upset that she would make such a statement.
Reading the article, it appears that Carlson decided she was going to rip Reid, and give her opinion that he does not have the right attitude to be a quarterback. She then needed an angle to take in the article, and jumped when she saw him being fed by his mother. But how she felt that connection was logical, relevant or appropriate I cannot understand.
It is too bad. Most of Carlson's article is acceptable, even if it is based largely on heresay and rumor. She never says that she is basing things on comments made on the record. She makes an opinion clear and should have allowed readers to decide whether or not they agree with her. It may not be a great argument on her part without specific examples to back her up, but other than the chicken comments, it should not have been an offensive one.
But she was too zealous in her approach, and now many readers reacting to it are categorizing the media in general based on her work.
One responder to the Oklahoman actually made it a political issue, by calling Carlson something to the extent of "another liberal reporter". I can't see how chicken eating has a side of the aisle, or for that matter criticizing a quarterback. If anything, Carlson's real-men-don't-get-fed-by-their-mommy's approach could be classified as somewhat conservative. But I think that's a stretch too.
In either case, I am disappointed that Carlson's unprofessional decision will make other sports reporters look bad, and I give Gundy credit for standing up to it the way he did, though I think his premise is a little off as well.
I'm curious what you think. Please comment, or e-mail. I really would love to start a dialogue here.