Outside the Aviary: "The Plan"

Listening to the blaring anger on the behalf of St. Mary's (whom I do sympathize with a tiny bit) on ESPN, I have a slight solution to our problem, here. The teams that wont play mid-majors at their school and the mid-majors that can't get neutral site games that are good enough to get in the big dance: a mid-season tournament that resembles an all-star game for college basketball teams.

Instead of forty different Christmas tourneys in Maui and etc. that usually prove next to nothing, let's consolidate all of them to a mid-season NIT. Schools can reject the invitation just like they can an invite to the NCAA tournament and the NIT postseason. If you don't like the idea of sixteen teams getting together in mid-season, don't go. BUT, if you are available and you think you could benefit your team at an away site against other good teams, then do it.

Sixteen teams, three days, equal parts mid-majors and power conferences. It can even be put together at the beginning of the season if the scheduling is too hard. Let's say the tournament goes after borderline teams in the power conferences: Arizona, Clemson, Auburn, etc. You know who the near-good teams in these conferences. Then you take the teams that struggle to get good games (ones that don't have ACC or PAC-10 help like a Davidson, Gonzaga and the like)-- St. Mary's, Utah State, Siena. This makes the Christmas holiday tremendous on a sports level-- NBA Christmas day, football in full swing, and a college basketball tourney in-season that has major implications for teams in March.

I'm sure there's problems with this, and it is an on-the-fly idea that won't work as far as scheduling. Also, arguing about what teams should get in is always fun. It's just that if the NCAA is really going to care about student-athletes, they have to give the smaller schools a chance to improve their out-of-conference schedules. That way, when they win or lose, at least they know they got a real shot. It's not so heartbreaking to get left off the list if you are provided with the means to get there.

Predictions to come, people.

Defending Roy Hibbert

No offense to my castlemate here at the Pretzel-life, but calling Roy Hibbert slow and soft is not the most intelligent argument against Georgetown's NCAA chances. This isn't just Phony, everyone seems to think Hibbert is defective. They seem to miss the excellent passing from the high post, the help defense, and the weak-side shot blocking that keeps the ball in play for the fast break. They miss the soft touch, the high-banks and the ability to screen the key. They miss the subtlety of John Thompson's system and how invaluable Hibbert is within it.

Furthermore, I got Georgetown winning it all because they form an offense/defensive scheme around strengths rather than to cover up weaknesses. Sure, Hibbert isn't the standard variety big man, but doesn't that bode well for him? If I am forming a team with their system, who do I want? Hansbrough? Hibbert? Beasley? Sure, Ty's the ultimate competitor and Beasley's upside is through the roof, but they wouldn't play in the kind of structured offense that Georgetown does. UNC runs and Kansas State bangs and penetrates. Georgetown, in a motion offense, needs a Hibbert more than they need a classic big man.

In thinking about Roy Hibbert, I consider him a power forward in the same vein I consider Tim Duncan a power-forward. No, I'm not comparing their skill level, but I am comparing their game. Timmy doesn't bang and buck nearly as much as a Shaq or any other "big-men", but he provides all the little things that makes the team a championship contender perennially. As does Hibbert. Georgetown has a threat to post up smaller forwards, turn and face larger guys and make them follow him out to his range (12-15) giving their guards a chance to get to the lane. Maybe he's not going to take that many midrange jumpers, but he sets picks all over the floor and forces the defense to extend and guard out of position. Beasley doesn't do that (not a knock-- he doesn't have to). Hansbrough does this occasionally, but Lawson doesn't really need picks. Aside from the game-winner over Virginia Tech, Hansbrough maybe took four jumpers in the entire NCAA Tournament. Good thing, too.

Defensively, he has some work to do, but who doesn't? He is not a monster shot-blocker or a complete rebounder, but he uses his size to make penetration harder and cuts off the baseline nicely. The knock on most big men is their lack of mobility from being pinned down the entire game. Using the two examples from before, Hansbrough typically does nothing to help his guards of forwards if they get beat. He's a great rebounder, though, and that makes up for it. Same with Beasley. Hibbert does everything fairly well rather than one or two things expertly. In last year's win over UNC in the Tourney, he hit a pair of bank shots, got a couple of rebounds and scared the shit out of Brandan Wright to the point that Wright stopped five feet short of a sure dunk to try and finger roll a ball on the break. ON THE BREAK. Brendan Wright 's arms can reach a rim from where I am sitting on 23rd Street and he tried, more than once, to finger roll from a few feet away.

While he may be softer than most, and maybe a step behind in running the floor or grabbing a rebound, Georgetown is just fine being within striking distance in every game they play. Since he's been there, they've been fantastic-- Final Four last year, top-two seeding, Big East champs (regular season) and a championship threat.

I seriously doubt anyone defending him or trying to shoot over him is worried about how soft or slow he is. If they are, it's more than likely an afterthought while Georgetown motors along toward another fantastic season.

Having said this, of course, I can guarantee they will lose to Baltimore County Community College Correctional Facility or whoever they play tomorrow. Of course.

Forever Blowing (and Stroking and Kneading and Rubbing) Bubbles

Mount St. Mary's did us all a favor last night, beating Coppin State 69-60 in the NCAA Tournament play-in game and sparing us, for at least one whole day, of the MSM going all "Coppin State is the worst team to ever get into the field of 64" and whatnot.

The thing is, they should be in.

This argument has probably been made elsewhere, but why aren't the final two at-large teams selected forced to "play" their way into the tournament? Here's some reasons why they should.

1. We all know that a #16 has never beaten a #1, and probably never will. Sure. Got it. But if you take the last two at-large teams and have the winner play the supposed "weakest" #1, well, now you've got some spice. And don't sell me that "you should be rewarded for being a #1 seed" shit. If you're a true national title contender, you should also be able to beat the sixth-best team in the ACC, eat their lunch, and make-out with their hot sister.

2. Why have the rule that conference tourney winners get an "automatic" bid if it's really not "automatic"? I used to have an "automatic" can opener that required you to put the can in at just the right angle, and then you had to press down on the top the entire time it opened the can. Guess what? I threw that "automatic" can opener out because it was a piece of fucking shit, then bought a "hand-held" one that works just as well and doesn't challenge my limited spatial skills.

3. Some people seem to think that the play-in game gives the "little guys" some national exposure. Let me squelch that one for you: NOBODY WATCHES THIS GAME. We all just wait for the highlights after the game or the next day and say shit like "Oh, looks like Lower Peninsula School for the NorthwestSoutheast IUPUI-OU812 St. won and is gonna get their fucking asses handed to them by [insert large school with astronomical athletic budget here]. Cool." But if you've got Arizona State playing Virginia Tech? People tune in.

4. I don't care how bad your team was during the year, if you muster up the balls to win three or four pressure-packed games in a row, you deserve to see your team's name - no matter how long or obscure or initial-ridden - on the bracket. None of this "Play-in game winner" shit.

5. Along the same lines, those first two days are magical. Who cares if you're relegated to the 10:50 a.m. tip-off on Thursday, and you're going to get crushed like white ass at an NBA party? Just being a part of that, and getting a few extra days off of classes, is key.

6. The play-in game participants played their conference tournament final in a gym that seats 8,000 and was 85% full. The game was broadcast on a regional network, whose satellite truck had fishing gear in the back of it. The graphics looked like something NBC shit out in the 70s. Villanova, however, played their conference first-round game at Madison Square Garden and had it broadcast on ESPN - sponsored by Aeropostale! Do you know who sponsored the SWAC tournament? Winston Pfeffer of Tupelo, Mississippi. Twenty bucks.

7. Instead of getting screwed over, some lucky mid-major (Butler, anyone?) may actually get the seed they deserve.

8. Aside from a few exceptions (Villanova as an 8 in '85, Kansas as a 6 in '88), bubble teams don't win shit. Sorry, Arizona. Good luck with that pissy weather and all those ugly bitches.

9. Even if it's just a clip of your center getting posterized, every conference champ should be a part of "One Shining Moment." Or have a game called by Gus Johnson. They're almost equal.

10. "But they seed them according to who's the best team, and a middling team from a major conference is better and has better talent than the best team from a small conference." Fuck you. And fuck you, too, NCAA. Really, that's the best one.