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.

Let's Talk About College Basketball, Shall We?

Here's the thing: I love basketball. I don't write about it all that much, because it's like describing sex. I feel like I can't do it justice. Watching a perfect pick-and-roll (I saw one last night when Chris Kaman dropped a midrange jumper by rolling off of a pick just TWO STEPS) or a well-executed break off of a long rebound, I just go warm all over and feel like I walk though cars or fight a school of fish and win. It's the damn truth.

There is, I'm afraid, a disconnect in the college game. I can't get excited about teams that take ten to fifteen seconds to set up a play that takes twenty to execute. It promotes the most boring kind of basketball-- sloppy picks, easy baskets on over-extended defenses and worst of all: coaches are allowed to overthink every play. I've picked on Sean Miller and Xavier before, and I will again today. There were plays where three people tried to pick for Drew Lavender (one of my favorite "won't make it in the pros, so he plays his fucking heart out every day 'cause this might be it" guards) and none of them rolled anywhere near the basket. Even if Lavender sprung free, who would be open near him? Everyone was standing around behind him, leaving him with an awkward bank shot that had a better chance of hitting me on my couch than rolling in. He made one out of three of those, and the commentators went nuts.

Then, with a small lead, Xavier made the same mistake they made against Ohio State in the tourney last year. They slowed down the ball. Against a good offensive team in Tennessee. And they gave up pretty much the exact same run-- 8-0 in the final two minutes-- and lost. Overthought. A game lost.

Conversely, Memphis' John Calipari put together a ridiculous second half against Georgetown. Memphis kept running them out of the gym-- refusing to stop penetrating or scoring early in the shot clock to keep the pressure applied. Lo and behold, they won a fairly convincing matchup. Call Calipari what you want, but he knows how to win when he's ahead. He knows he has a group of 18-21-year-old kids that don't want to do anything but play and win. The best way to do that is to let them run and press and play the way they did to grab that lead. If you lose because you continued to exploit weakness and beat a team at the end of the game (when they are tired), so be it. Losing in a slowed down offensive set when you've had success taking the forst open shot is ludicrous.

I propose a 30-second shot clock. Any team can muster a play in that amount of time and the games will be more compact and tighter in flow. Meanwhile, coaches may have to reconsider their "milk the clock, wait until there is a "7" on the shot clock, and force up a horrendous three strategy." They will have to call plays toward the end of the game like NBA coaches do. Maybe they will call the wrong plays, or set eight picks with no rolls. Maybe they'll draw up new plays to attack tired, desperate players and exploit over-aggressiveness toward the end of the game. Maybe, just maybe.

Either way, I can't love the current format if it continues like this. It's just five seconds. It will make for better basketball for... uh, me, I guess.

Thoughts?