BCS National Championship

LSU vs. Alabama. Not the game of the century, but once again the BCS, despite all the criticism it gets, has done its job once again by putting the best two teams against each other to determine a champion. I hate that they're 2 SEC teams, but does anyone think Oklahoma State, Stanford, Oregon, Wisconsin, or anyone else is better than either of these teams?

With the resurgence of teams like USC, Michigan, and Oklahoma State, next year we should hopefully have the possibility of a non-SEC team in the BCS championship. But this year, no one else has a case. Sorry Cowboys, losing to Iowa State disqualifies you, I'm sorry. Not only are they a horrible team, but it came at a time when you just can't lose.

Living in a college football world where other teams can challenge some SEC teams is obviously the best scenario for everyone. But next year, there are still only a number of teams who can compete with the cream of the crop of the SEC. Here they are:

Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, USC, Stanford, Oregon, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska, Michigan State, and of course, Ohio State. I'm just talking about competing with their best, not necessarily being better. There are some teams who are almost there:

Virginia Tech, TCU, Clemson, Baylor, West Virginia, Florida State, Penn State, Texas (having a couple down years), and Boise State.

Unfortunately, several of these teams (Stanford, Penn State, Baylor) are on the down-swing after their star QB's or NCAA-hit sanctions finish their toll. The worst is over for USC who next year will be bowl-eligible led by possibly the best QB in the country next year. Ohio State had its down year this past year but with coach Urban Meyer running the show, the Buckeyes will have made it through this ordeal with just one down year.

Looking at the SEC rundown, there are several teams already poised for a championship next year:

LSU, Alabama, Auburn, South Carolina, and Arkansas.

Not to mention some on-the-cusp teams who are just a few players away from having a great team:

Georgia, Florida, Texas A&M, and Missouri.

As a Big Ten fan, I hate acknowledging how good the SEC is. But until teams can consistently knock them off (not just USC but multiple teams), they have bragging rights. I think the Big Ten is the closest conference to them right now. To determine the best conferences, I think you can use the eyeball test to see how far down the depth chart they go. That will be a different article.

For now, just know the best 2 teams this year are in the championship. The BCS got it right again.

Delicate Topic Crossing

This is a very delicate topic for a lot of people. It really interests me because I feel like I have some creditability when it comes to the subject. I've lived in Mexico for 2 years...but not just anywhere....I was right on the border. Nogales, Agua Prieta, Esqueda, Hermosillo, Obregon, Guaymas, Navojoa... I was as close to the border as you can get, so I've seen first-hand a little of what goes on at the border. Plus my best friend is from Guadalajara, so I've got a lot of ponies in this race.

In my opinion, the topic of illegal immigration needs to be dealt with in 2 different parts but a lot of people try and shove them together. First, there's the issue of illegal immigration as it happens today. What are we doing to secure the borders, what is the process to become a citizen or obtain permission to enter the country, etc. Secondly, what do we do with all the illegal immigrants that are in this country already?

Let's address the first issue. This is what most people think of when illegal immigration controversy arises. My view will be based on Mexico, since that's where most of our problems with illegal immigration are. There's so much that goes into this. The Democratic view is to open the borders (as much as possible) and make it easier for people to come into the country. I fall more on this side. We need to change the process of how people can come into this country. The whole reason most are trying to do it illegally is because they've tried and can't do it legally. It's expensive, time-consuming, and not always fair. There are good people doing everything they know how to become citizens. Aren't these the type of citizens we want in our country? People who want to be citizens?

There obviously aren't any easy answers, but this is the main thing that needs to change. The fact that Mexico doesn't have it all together like the U.S does makes it harder. A lot of people have multiple names and no documentation. The U.S doesn't have record of them, so it's harder to track them down. A lot of people ask what the big problem is, and compare it to other countries in Europe. The sheer quantity of how many people want to cross Mexico's border to get into the U.S is far and above any other country, including Canada. Let's fix the bigger problema and it may just fix any smaller ones we have.

We need to have more accountability. Let's fix the system so that we can allow more people over, but we need to figure out some ways to tighten it up. Since documentation is limited (but should still be required) on Mexico's side, let's create some on our side so we'll have what we need then maybe we can require check-ins every month or so. Let's get the number of 'illegal' immigrants down so we can deal with legal immigrants.

This is one thing that really gets me. People often talk about 'illegal immigration' as 'immigration'.... can you see the problem here? Immigration is not the same as ILLEGAL immigration!! Many people ONLY have problems with the illegal part. So how can we just ignore that word when we discuss immigration?? We don't do it for anything else... "this person got the candy bar from the store, and this person ILLEGALLY got the candy bar from the store." Shouldn't those 2 things be handled differently?! The same goes with immigration. For those people who the VERY FIRST thing they do when they get to this country is BREAK THE LAW by entering it illegally, they aren't the people we want here. What that means is if they're willing to break the law by even getting here, they'll be willing to break it while they're here. Whether they continue to do it is irrelevant: every single illegal immigrant HAS ALREADY broken the law. 100% of illegal immigrants have done something illegal. So when you talk about immigration, please make sure you are clear on whether it's legal or not...don't lump those 2 together.

Which brings me to the Republican point of view: close the borders. Now this is just one side of the Republican view because a lot of Republicans are extremely hypocritical when it comes to illegal immigration. Just ask Alabama farmers. Most DON'T want illegal immigrants in this country, but as long as they're here let's give them a job for $2 an hour. Sadly that's more than they would earn in a lot of places in Mexico. So Republicans want to close the borders but keep a secret pathway open to their business so they can maximize profits.

I like parts of both points of view. I think we need to open the borders more, just like Democrats want. But I also want stricter punishment for those who do come illegally, just like Republicans. Now this will only work if we do enact them together. Opening the borders without restructuring the process of letting people in will only make it worse for us.

This is just the first part of the problem. The second part deals with the illegals who are already here. Ask an immigrant who became legal through the process how they feel about simply making all the illegal immigrants here citizens. Or to feel a similiar effect, ask New Yorkers how they felt about terrorism on September 12, 2001. It took some people years and years to become citizens of this great country, so granting instant citizenship to a group of people who's only group accomplishment has been to break the law is more than a little disheartening to them. And I don't blame them. There has to be something they can do besides just becoming Americans.

I know exactly how tough conditions are in Mexico. I taught people about the LDS religion in shacks made of cardboard. Some families made a few cents an hour at their jobs. I saw this for 2 years. If your heart doesn't tug at the sight of some of these poor conditions, I don't know what will. But I can't just not show up for work because I'm giving all my money to the homeless in downtown Salt Lake...I have to help where and when I can. Likewise, we just can't let anyone who wants to come into this country and be made a citizen in...there needs to be a proper way of doing it and up until now it hasn't worked out that well. So let's make a change so we can have the obedient, respectful Mexican citizens here who want to be here.

These are the 2 issues that need to be addressed, in that order. It's not easy, and I don't claim to have all the answers. But the more we keep delaying this, the worse it will get.

Now I googled illegal immigration images and some of the first ones I saw were signs saying, "If you think I'm illegal because I'm a Mexican learn the true history because I'm in my homeland." To the millions of Mexicans who feel that Mexico still owns what is now California, Utah, Nevada, Texas, etc., let me be the first to tell you that you don't own it anymore. It sucks, I know. But that's a decision your country made. You can't sit and whine about it. Either accept it or fight us for it. Land has pretty much been allocated to each country, so just use what you have. How do you think the American Indians feel? If Canada ended up taking Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, do you think Americans would stand around complaining about it? No. We'd get over it and move on. The U.S isn't your homeland...you're not entitled to everything west of the Mississippi River. Mexico is your homeland, and it could be a great place. Take your country back from the people who have corrupted it. Or hopefully the U.S will get their act together about immigration and you'll have a better chance to come here legally and potentially stay here. I'm all for immigration...it's the illegal part that bothers me.

So there's my more than 2 cents. Probaly more like a few hundred bucks worth of opinions. I love Mexico, and when the U.S gets knocked out of the world cup, I'll be cheering for the Red, White, and Green. But both sides need to give a little bit in order to make this work.

Big Ten Turmoil

There are a lot of changes in the Big Ten: something that this conference hasn't had much of in the past. Just to name a few, Nebraska is coming in, with the new addition we've added a championship game, and the biggest turmoil of all to me: Ohio State.

I for one would just like to get this mess over with. Obviously Jim Tressel did some things he shouldn't have done. I admit I was one of those at the beginning defending him, but with everything coming out, I have to think he did do all that stuff. If you're going to do that stuff, don't write a book on integrity. And then what really got him and Ohio State in trouble, don't lie to the NCAA! Had he not lied, this could have been avoided. I think all the major college programs are breaking at least 1 rule, but the big rule you can't break is lying or the NCAA will do everything it can to destroy you.

That being said, I am ready to move on. This year was already going to be a down year with Pryor jetting for the NFL, but with some of the new recruits bolting (and for Michigan?! Buckeye fans your whole life, huh??), a new coach, a new system, possible consequences from the NCAA, this year is really going to be a down year. Now Ohio State down years haven't really been down years, but I think this year we need to make it that way. I hope Delany says Ohio State is not eligible to participate in the Big Ten championship and I hope the NCAA bans this years' bowl game. OSU can afford to take a hit one year; we'll be okay. Then we can say we've been punished; we've atoned for the rules we broke. By we, I mean Jim Tressel and Terrelle Pryor & crew.

The Pac-12 Test

Seeing as how it's "Pac-12 Day" in Utah, another summer holiday most people won't know why Utahns are celebrating, I decided to do a blog on the Utes and their new home. Most of this deals with football. I think they'll be fine in other sports. They're very competitive in gymnastics, one of what I like to call the 'lesser sports' around the country. Basically, in college sports there's football (#1, not even close), basketball (#2, a safe distance ahead of #3), and the rest of the sports are just regional. The Pac-12 actually takes some pride in their lesser sports, so Utah may be a good fit. Utah basketball, led by their new coach, is going to a conference that is pretty lousy. When your conference barely gets 3 teams into the tournament, that's not good. The Mountain West got better teams in than the Pac-10, and Utah women's basketball is pretty good. So they have nothing to worry about in basketball.

Football, on the other hand, is the sport I think people should be a little more concerned about. Now, it's a great day to celebrate so maybe that's why nobody is worried about the future. But as a Big Ten fan, all I hear out here in Utah with all the Ute, Cougar, Bronco, and Aggie fans is how the BCS is horrible, the little guy never wins, and how small teams deserve the shot to play in the national championship. They point to the bowl records against BCS teams, which between TCU, Utah, & Boise State are pretty good. BYU doesn't help it much, but at least they can compete against the 5th seed in the Pac-10 when they're a 2 seed. Look at what Utah did to Alabama in the Sugar Bowl, right?

I think MWC apologists get caught up in their top teams rather than their conference as a whole. The knock on the Mountain West Conference isn't their top 2 or 3 teams, nor is it their bottom 1 or 2 teams: it's the teams in the middle that bring it down. All teams have just horrible teams at the bottom of their conference. Take a look: Duke/Wake Forest (ACC), Kansas (Big 12), Rutgers (Big East), Memphis (Conf. USA), New Mexico (MWC), Washington State (Pac-10), Vanderbilt (SEC), and Indiana (Big 10). Everyone has a bad team or two that they play. But good conferences can go 6 deep with good teams. Let's take a look at the 6th-best team from each: Miami FL (ACC), Texas Tech (Big 12), Louisville (Big East), Penn State (Big 10), Arizona State (Pac 10), South Carolina (SEC), Idaho (WAC), and  Colorado State (MWC).

Can you see the difference? South Carolina won their division in the SEC AS THE 6TH-BEST TEAM in the conference! They finished at 9-5. The reason people consider teams that beat up on their weak conferences is because Colorado State finished 3-9! Idaho finished at 6-7. Can you imagine if South Carolina, Penn State, Texas Tech, ASU, or Miami were in the MWC? Not together, just one at a time. This last year, all of these teams would have gone undefeated, possibly losing 1 game to TCU. So yes, TCU stood up for their conference by beating Wisconsin, but not really. They stood up for themselves, really. Now they're in a BCS conference along with Utah. Why did they all bolt to go to bigger, better conferences? They need a stronger conference. The teams that need to stand up for the conference are Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, UNLV, SDSU. Utah & TCU have done their job, they're just not getting any help.

So the issue with Utah going to the Pac-12 is not about the bowl games (they've obviously done well there), but with their new conference. Now instead of playing BYU, SDSU, Wyoming, CSU, UNLV, & New Mexico at the end of the year, they'll be playing USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, and either Oregon, Cal, or Stanford. It's a week-to-week grind. It takes its toll on you. You may be the best team but when you play USC, Oregon, and Arizona back-to-back-to-back anything can happen. You could lose 1, 2, or all of those games. Maybe you have a bad game against USC, a close one that didn't go your way at Oregon, and by the time you get to Arizona you're just too tired. In the MWC, you only have to prepare for TCU and BYU. You usually don't play them close to each other, and even if you do, you only have to worry about those 2 games. Even Coach Whittingham recognized it:

"The week-in and week-out level of competition is ratcheted up," Whittingham said. "There are some excellent football teams in the Mountain West Conference. ... Not to downplay or disrespect anything that's going on in the Mountain West, but we're convinced the weekly challenges will be much more difficult than they have been in years' past for us."


The big difference between a BCS conference and a non-BCS conference? How teams handle playing good teams every week instead of twice, maybe three times a year. Going to their new home will be a test to see if Utah fans can back up the hype they've created for their football team. With USC being ineligible this year Utah may be able to sneak in the first year, but I don't think they'll be consistent over the next few years. I don't know if they'll succeed or not, but I am excited to see what does happen.

NBA Draft 2011

For this years' draft, I wanted to list my guess (because that's what this year is) as to how the draft is going to end up and then talk about who I want my Cavaliers to pick up. So here it is:

1.  Cavs - Kyrie Irving
2.  T'Wolves - Derrick Williams
3.  Jazz - Enes Kantor
4.  Cavs - Jonas Valanciunas
5.  Raptors - Brandon Knight
6.  Wizards - Kawhi Leonard
7.  Kings - Kemba Walker
8.  Pistons - Jan Vesely
9.  Bobcats - Bismack Biyombo
10. Bucks - Alec Burks
11. Warriors - Tristan Thompson
12. Jazz - Jimmer Fredette
13. Suns - Klay Thompson

There's a lot of things that can happen, and it all depends on the Jazz starting it off. There are reports that the T'Wolves take Kantor, but I don't think that happens. Williams has too much upside. Although if it does, Jazz fans will have a great draft this year. Utah will take either Kantor or Knight. If they take Knight, they don't take Fredette at 12. They have a PG in Devin Harris, although he's not the PG of the future. I think the Jazz will want to cater to the fans this year, especially with last year's blow-up (I was there...the GM nearly got killed that night). They'll want to take Jimmer and unless NY moves up from 17, they'll get him. But to take Jimmer, they'll have to take Kantor with their 3rd pick or be stuck with 3 PG's in Harris, Knight, and Fredette. Not a good idea.

So after the Jazz pick, things will fall more into place until about the 7th or 8th pick. After that, it's really a crapshoot. Unless Kemba's stock just plummets (this IS the same guy who won not only the Big East tournament single-handedly but also the NCAA tournament, right??), those 8 are the top 8 picks in some kind of order. After that, team needs will dictate more than talent will.

So if I was Chris Grant...a job I'd love to have and hate to have at the same time... my 1st pick without having seen any workouts or interviewed either would be Derrick Williams. Not because I think he has more upside than Irving, although I'll admit up until yesterday that was what I thought. I'd take Williams because he's clearly the best forward in the draft with a lot of PG's higher up. So this would force Minnesota to either take ANOTHER PG in the midst of the Rubio mess or take Kantor. Either way, Irving and Kantor finish out the top 3 (unless the Jazz REALLY like Knight, in which case there's a small chance the Cavs end up with Williams AND Irving...hey, we won the draft with a small chance, right?! The Nets pick?) leaving either Jonas, Knight, or Walker as the 4th pick. I am going against the grain and saying that I'd rather have Kemba than Knight. He is better in just about every statistical category and he's a winner. He willed his team to beat out the best teams in the best conference and then won the NCAA tournament. I'm sorry, I go with someone who knows how to win rather than 'potential upside' like Knight. So that is what I'd do: Derrick Williams to run the 3 with J.J Hickson & Varejao, and Kemba to run the point with Davis & especially when he leaves. I'll be happy if the Cavs pick up any combination of Irving, Williams, Kantor, Knight, Kemba, & Jonas. If they pick up someone outside of those 6, I think Cavs fans can look forward to another looooooooong few years ahead (hopefully Sullinger comes out next year, right!?).

End of the Year (NBA)

This is how a lot of teams feel at the end of the year: mad. If you're not in the playoffs or awaiting most likely the #1 pick in the draft next year, you're probably a little disappointed.

But even if you aren't, the end of the regular season is pretty much a joke in any sport with a playoff system (If you're anti-BCS, this is one point where you lose an argument). When you're dealing with sports that play a ton of games (baseball - 162, basketball - 82), the last 1-20 games could be vacation days. So while some teams show effort for the last 2 weeks of the year, most don't - which makes it a horrible team to judge a team, even for the next year.

So we'll go through some teams that had some bright spots that weren't really bright spots and some teams that had really bad weeks that weren't really that horrible.

First, the bright spots.

The Cleveland Cavaliers, in another move which showed how smart of a team we are, won 6 of their last 12 games. Brilliant. We were in line for the #1 pick in the draft next year AND another top ten pick, but instead we go on a run and knock ourselves out of the lottery contention. Now maybe that means we weren't giving up the last few games of the year; we wanted to finish strong. In all levels but professional, I can see why you would want to do that. I'd instruct my own players to play that hard, but not if I coached an NBA team. "But Aaron, that means that we're not as bad of a team as we seemed the whole year. We finally got it together." Really? You think the teams we beat were even putting up a fight? Let's take a look at who we beat:

Washington Wizards...that's a tough one.
Detroit Pistons...they might be the only team in worse shape going forward than the Cavs.
Toronto Raptors...another horrible team.
Charlotte Bobcats...bad team that had an even more disappointing year.
Miami Heat...good win, but let's face it: we had some extra motivation to win this one while the Heat had no motivation to even show up.
Detroit Pistons...again.

Out of all these teams, how many are playoff teams? One...and like I said, they were more worried about resting their starters because they're not deep. Wade has been dealing with injuries, they're not worried about a team they beat by 30 the last time they played them. So beating 4 crappy teams (one of them twice) along with an unmotivated Miami Heat (who we already had a grudge against) team should give me cause to rejoice? I don't think so. Our reward? Probably a 2nd pick in the draft when we could've had 1st. Great job, Cavaliers.

Second, the Utah Jazz. I know about this situation because I live in Utah. So what happened this year to the most stable organization possibly in professional sports? They used their 8th pick in the draft to select the slow, white guy (memories of Ostertag anyone?), their long-tenured head coach resigned, and they traded their only star player. This year was a disaster for the Utah Jazz. So now, Jazz fans and analysts/fans are looking for some positives, some reasons to be excited for this new team. The first thing they point to is that they got Devin Harris & Derrick Favors. Okay, I'll give you Favors as a possible All-Star...keyword POSSIBLE. And Devin Harris hasn't been able to do anything by himself. He is becoming one of the more overrated players in the league. He didn't do anything in Jersey, and in Dallas he played with Dirk. When he was the 1st or 2nd guy, he hasn't done much. And he's nowhere near Williams level. So you gave away your only star for a few guys who may become decent players. All of this stemmed from fans blaming Williams for Sloan's resignation. Are you kidding me?!

Next, fans point to Gordon Hayward. Arguably the worst rookie selection of the 1st round, Hayward had a monster performance the last game of the year. Keywords: last game of the year. They played Denver who had basically mailed it in. In fact, you could make the argument that they were trying to get a LOWER seed by losing more games in order to play Dallas in the 1st round instead of a hot Oklahoma City team. Towards the end of the year, they went 1-0 against Dallas and 0-2 against OKC. So Hayward had a great game against a team who sat out basically their 7 best players: Felton, Lawson (injury), Gallinari, Harrington, Anderson, Nene, Afflalo. You beat the worst 6 players on the Nuggets: great job.

So in summary, the last games of the year don't really matter much. Anything can happen. The Colts sit out Manning. Kobe and the Lakers take a break to get ready for the playoffs. It doesn't matter.

The other bright spots were the Warriors and the Wizards who went 6-4 in their last 10 games. Not as bright as it seems.

Now it's time for the teams who, on paper, look horrible going into the postseason. As if we didn't see this coming...it only happens every year.

The defending Eastern Conference champion Boston Celtics go below .500 in their last 13 games. This is what they did last year and everyone counted them out. Anyone care to do the same this time?

The #1 San Antonio Spurs, 4-time NBA champions in the last 15 years, lose 8 of their last 12 games to finish the year. What a collapse!! Really? Spurs fans shouldn't freak out because of that nor should they freak out about their game 1 loss against Memphis. They're going to be fine.

Same thing goes for the Lakers and the Hawks, both teams that mailed in the end of their season. That's what you can do when you're guarenteed a spot in the playoffs. So to the teams at the bottom: worry. To the teams at the top: don't worry. The last 10 games don't mean much.

We Get What We Want

As someone who used to be freakishly skinny and now has some chub to him, I hear a lot of people complain about getting fat. I also hear a lot of people complain that they don't get what they want in life. Nothing ever goes their way. It's like Bruce in Bruce Almighty:

Jennifer Aniston:  So God is picking on you, is that what you’re saying?

Bruce: No! He is ignoring me completely! He’s far too busy getting Evan everything he wants.

The truth is, though, that we really do get what we want in life. Take me for example. I'm like most overweight guys out there now. If only I could lose weight!! I really want to! I'd do anything to be skinny and have a great body!!

That anything doesn't include giving up the pop and chips right now, though. I want pop and chips. So really, I'm getting what I want. I think it's the same thing for a lot of people. The person that wants to graduate school will actually graduate school. The athlete who wants to become great will work hard to become great. The singer who wants to sing well will put in the practice. We get what we really want. The lazy guy will get out of practicing and eat junk food all day sitting on the sofa. That's what he wants.

So until we're willing to change what it is we really want outta life, we will continue to get what we want.

Regrets

One of the new trends in our society is to have no regrets about life. The thought is that you can't be happy with your life as it is and at the same time have regrets. This is a lie. I am very happy with my life but I still have regrets. Everyone should have regrets. If you really think about all the aspects that have made up your life, there's no way you can say I made every decision the right way and wouldn't change a thing in my life. You're lying to yourself if you do.

Before we go into specifics, let's define what a regret really is. It's as simple as wishing you would have done something differently. It doesn't have to be a huge deal. It could be wishing you had gotten the lobster instead of the chicken at the restaurant last week. It's a change in something you've done.

Now, let's see all the many ways, big and small, you would change something in.

School

Most of us have at least 13 years of school under our belts, so there's a lot to choose from. Switching a class, paying more attention in class, paying less attention in class, studying more/less, not being the school bully, being the school bully, turning in more homework than you did, playing a sport, being a cheerleader, joining a club, asking a girl out, not asking a girl out, going to a dance, going to a dance with someone else.. these are all examples. Plus I would think most of us have something embarassing that happened to us at some point in high school.

Work

On time everyday? Never been late or took a "sick" day? Ever not taken a "sick" day when you wanted to? Maybe it wouldn't have changed much long-term, but maybe it was worth it that one time. And I'm sure you entered in every single piece of information accurately. No times you wanted to tell your boss off and didn't? Maybe a client? Or maybe you did and you wished you hadn't. Wished you had a different job? There's a lot in this category to cover.

Personal

This is one that EVERYBODY is included in. Ever have a bad thought? Ever wanted to? Relationships? Money? Social life? Addictions? Movies? Cars? Tons of stuff.

Sports

I put this one here for everyone that's ever missed a shot, dropped a ball, or didn't quite finish the race in the time they wanted. I missed a game-tying shot the other night. I wish it would've went in: there's a regret.

Spiritual

Are you perfect? No, and you won't be in this life. Whether you believe in God or someone else, you probably strive to be the best person you can be. Return missionaries...talk to everyone you possibly could have during your mission? Probably not. Make mistakes? Of course you did. Those are regrets; you'd change them if you could.

So don't say you don't have any regrets in life. Yea, some of the wrong choices may have led you the way you wanted to go or maybe the way you eventually went and love, but there are a ton of smaller choices out there that you would change if you could. You shouldn't dwell on things, especially small things, that you did or didn't do. Most of the regrets you have are probably ones you COULD live with, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't change a thing or two if you could go back and do it again. It's like most things in life: if you don't fail at it at least once or twice, you're probably not giving it all that you have.

March Sanity

March sanity is here!! Well, kinda... Basically no one really pays attention to college basketball until the last week. Yea, maybe a few glances at the highlights on ESPN or checking out the standings to make sure their team has a shot at making the 68-team tournament. But aside from that, ratings & ticket sales have never been lower in the history of college basketball. Know why? There are a ton of games that really don't matter too much individually in the regular season. This is what a playoff will give you for those of you who declare yourselves as proud anti-BCS: a weak regular season with teams taking off at the end of the year. Think all the teams in the conference tournaments really go out to play? Yea right. The conference tournaments are for bubble teams to improve their chances of making the tournament, not for teams to change their seed from a 6 to a 5. 

So aside from the upsets, there is a mix between sanity & madness. I'm going to go through each of them to see if we can't change a few things to make the good things even better.

MADNESS

First up, a 96-team tournament. This is a joke. I can't believe anybody would want this! I've only heard 2 people back this & one of them is Charles Barkley. Really? That's a turrible idea, Chuck. Adding another 28 teams may seem like a good idea, but think about it for a NANO-SECOND....it'll come to ya. You're not getting 28 more Dukes, UNC's, OSU's, Pitt's, & Syracuses....you're getting more teams that consist of 4+ letters in their names. Have you seen the play-in games?! Can you honestly name any of these teams without looking them up? UTSA, ALST, UAB, VCU, UNCA, UALR, UCSB, UNCO. I'm guessing most of you can tell me what 1 of these acronyms means, maybe 2. You're diluting the tournament. You're making it less fun to watch because you have 28 more teams that suck. Yea, you'll get the 4 or 5 teams that are dubbed as "snubs" who should've gotten in the tournament. But after that, you get mediocre teams, most below .500 for the year. Do we really want that?

SANITY

If you're just unwilling to accept that only 68 teams needs to be in the tournament, then put in 4 more slots to make it a 72-team tournament. Just have the last 8 teams in play against each other. We don't need any formulas....ooh, their RPI is 12.5354 points higher so they should get in. No. We'll have 8 play-in games. By doing this, we make it harder to get a perfect tournament bracket as well as give the sports analysts less to debate. "How could Alabama get snubbed like that?!" Well, now there are less snubs. Though, being the media, they just go deeper to find a snub list. Think that will go away by just adding teams? Nope. Just like the BCS making an 8-team playoff, or a 12-team playoff: there will always be some teams who get "snubbed" out of the tournament and that's just how it is. Plus the more teams you add, the less impressive the already-pitiful NIT tournament gets.

MADNESS

Conference tournaments. Do we really need them? We can't just make the regular season winner the automatic berth? We need to have all the teams play each other in 3 days when it took 3 weeks to do during the year? The NFL & college football have figured out this principle: sometimes less is more. Conference tournaments make the regular season pointless, ESPECIALLY if you're a team from a smaller conference. Let's say you're a team from the Atlantic-10. Can anyone name me 3 teams from that conference without looking first of all? Didn't think so (but we LOVE underdogs, right?). There are 13 other teams in that conference and you play 16 regular season games. So it's very possible you play the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th-best teams only once during the year. Let's say you play your heart out, end up with a 15-1 record, and win your conference. However, the last game of the year, your star player goes down with an injury that will keep him sidelined for a week and a half. He misses the entire conference tournament. Now, instead of getting an automatic berth for working hard for 2 months, you likely don't get into the tournament because you didn't win your conference AND you're from a smaller conference so your strength of schedule isn't that impressive. UAB got lucky this year, but there's a lot of controversy surrounding them getting in. If NCAA basketball wasn't so down this year, UAB doesn't get in. Think this is fair? Ask a Long Beach State fan.

SANITY

Just get rid of the conference tournaments. Period. If you want a pre-tournament, maybe schedule some mini-tournaments pinning bubble teams against each other. Have a bubble tournament! Just no more conference tournaments and PLEASE no automatic berths to the winners of them. Leave it blank so teams can schedule more non-conference teams.


So let's change some things around so we can concentrate on the madness of the games and not the process by which teams are selected.

NBA Lockout

Unlike the NFL, the NBA is probably going to have a lockout. Football just makes too much sense to not have, but basketball isn't the most popular sport in the U.S. So the new CBA becomes a little more give & take between the owners & players association.

So here are some issues that I think should be addressed in order to make the NBA better.

1. Salary Cap

2. Arbitration with contracts

3. Expand the court

4. High school or 2 years in college minimum, or 3 years overseas

Issues not to change:

1. 3-point line

2. Guarenteed contracts

So with this new CBA, there has to be some compromise between both sides. I think these items show it.

First, the salary cap. I don't think this should be a breaking point for either side, but I do think some sort of franchising similiar to the NFL would work. Basically the 1st star that signs with you could be your franchise player, or make room for 2 stars to be franchised. The salary cap could then be reasonably lower since the player(s) salary(s) don't count towards your salary cap. If LeBron & Kobe make your team, there's no reason to cut their salary. They aren't the problem. Andrei Kirilenko making $18 million a year is the reason NBA franchises go broke. Here's a list of the most overpaid players this year:

Rashard Lewis - $20.5 million

Michael Redd - $18.35

Andrei Kirilenko - $17.8

Yao Ming - $17.7

Gilbert Arenas - $17.7

Vince Carter - $17.3

Zach Randolph - $17.3

Kenyon Martin - $16

Elton Brand - $16

Peja Stojakovic - $15.35

Kobe at $24.8 million isn't bankrupting franchises, it's all these players. Kobe puts people in the seats, opens up different revenue streams in different markets, & gets better players to play with him (like Gasol & Artest). No one wants to play with an old Peja or Brand. Franchising players protects your best players salaries while limiting others. When Allen Iverson went out & found out that no one was willing to make him their #1 guy, it was easy to drop his salary to 10% of what he was asking for. So franchising at least 1 player would help with the salary cap issues.

The second point is arbitration with contracts. There's a big problem with players who get injured or who don't perform to certain levels while relaxing in their fat contract they signed 2 years before. There has to be a few things implemented & the players association have to allow it. These items need to be able to reduce contracts when injuries or extremely sub-par performances occur. Contracts also need to include cash incentives when team goals are reached. This should motivate players to win & accomplish team goals rather than individual goals. A set standard needs to be input for injuries but performance standards should be different for each player as well as each team for team goals.

The third point is expanding the court. I heard this on the radio driving tonight and I think it's a good idea to look into. I think the length & width should be expanded, even if it's just by a little bit. The dimensions have been the same for decades while the players have gotten bigger, stronger, & faster. Give them a little bit more space & maybe team basketball will be increased. In my church building, we have a very small court. There's less incentive for passing as opposed to playing on a bigger court.

The 4th point is for the players. They want to be able to jump right to the NBA from high school. Okay, go for it. For every Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, & Kobe Bryant there are 4 other players who were complete busts or close-to. Here are some names of players who declared & got drafted from high school:

Al Harrington, Korleone Young, Jonathan Bender, Leon Smith, Darius Miles, DeShawn Stevenson, Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Dasagna Diop, Ousmane Cisse, Travis Outlaw, Ndudi Ebi, James Lang, Shaun Livingston, Robert Swift, Dorell Wright, Martell Webster, Gerald Green, C.J Miles, Ricky Sanchez, Louis Williams, Amir Johnson.

So yeah, you have a few all-stars from high-school but you have a lot of busts. Allowing players to get drafted from high school would give the players association what they want, but also implement this rule: if they go to college, they need to play at least 2 years in college or 3 years elsewhere. This would help deter players from playing overseas & get them to go to college here in the U.S. This would not only help the college basketball product, but the NBA product as well. Maybe some players are good enough for the NBA out of high school, but most aren't. This gives them the opportunity to try for the draft but also forces them to play more than just 1 year in college so they can get at least an associates degree (unless you go to a school like the University of Utah, in which they don't give out associates degrees). I think it solves problems for all sides.

Don't mess with the 3-point line. Only really old people who played without it actually think about that idea. If anything, implement a couple 4-point shots like the Globetrotters do. But don't take away the 3. It's a part of basketball now.

And you won't need to mess with guarenteed contracts if you implement the arbitration for contracts, either. The only reason owners complain about them being guarenteed is because of people like Eddy Curry or Yao Ming in which owners are stuck paying dozens of millions of dollars because players got injured. It happens. Their salary shouldn't be taken away, but it should be lowered especially for those who are out for seasons at a time.

These are some of the ideas the parties involved in the lockout should consider.