Quick Thought: do you have to go back to 1995 (or even 1982?) to find a Duke-UNC game with less meaning?
And less hype?
ESPN effectively launched its first "spin-off", ESPN2 with the Duke-UNC game back in the mid-1990s by broadcasting the game exclusively on "the Deuce."
Today, it's barely part of "Rivalry Week."
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ESPN. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Things That Make You Go Hmmm... (NBA Edition)
* Disgraced former NBA ref Tim Donaghy has written in book while in prison for the last year. After Triumph Books (an imprint of Random House) apparently bought the rights to the book last year, it is alleged that pressure from the NBA made them re-think, and ultimately decided not to go forward with the project. Deadspin has excerpts (also, in fairness, the source for the NBA-is-killing-the-book rumor) from the book, some of which are explosive (i.e., that refs regularly bet on games, or on events within the game that they had control over, like who would be the first to call a technical foul.)
The excerpts on fellow NBA referees are more damaging than any allegation of betting on NBA games. Here's what he has to say about Dick Bavetta:
* While anyone who's ever watched an NBA game closely will tell you that particular refs can influence the flow of a game. Refs certainly have a role in other sports, as well, although their effect is rarely so pronounced -- or so discussed. Even when a baseball umpire misses a call (or two), it is seen as just that: a missed call. Not part of an orchestrated plan emanating from the Commissioner's office. (Indeed, the missed calls in this year's ALCS resulted in umpiring changes for the World Series. Missed calls in the NBA are treated with the transparency and openness of a failed Five Year Plan in the old Soviet Union.)
* Donaghy has creditability problems, no doubt. But Bill Simmons is a favorite of the league; his new book (The Book of Basketball) on the history of the NBA(*) is number one on the New York Times best-seller list, and his calls are taken by NBA Commissioner David Stern (see BOB, page 137, footnote 89)(**)
(*) - More to come on the BOB.
(**) - Referencing that Stern believes that the advent of cable TV had a bigger impact on 'saving' the NBA than the arrival of Bird and Magic; both events occurred around 1980] "How do I know this? I called the commish and asked him. We talked for 35 minutes."
* Simmons himself has written extensively on the problem with NBA referees, including during the playoffs last spring:
* And in the BOB (page 131), here's Simmons on the 1977-78 season:
* Bavetta himself told the Orland Sentinel that he may retire at the end of the year.
* Unexpected retirements are an NBA tradition in the Stern era.
The excerpts on fellow NBA referees are more damaging than any allegation of betting on NBA games. Here's what he has to say about Dick Bavetta:
Studying under Dick Bavetta for 13 years was like pursuing a graduate degree in advanced game manipulation. He knew how to marshal the tempo and tone of a game better than any referee in the league, by far. He also knew how to take subtle — and not so subtle — cues from the NBA front office and extend a playoff series or, worse yet, change the complexion of that series.
The 2002 Western Conference Finals between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Sacramento Kings presents a stunning example of game and series manipulation at its ugliest. As the teams prepared for Game 6 at the Staples Center, Sacramento had a 3–2 lead in the series. The referees assigned to work Game 6 were Dick Bavetta, Bob Delaney, and Ted Bernhardt. As soon as the referees for the game were chosen, the rest of us knew immediately that there would be a Game 7. A prolonged series was good for the league, good for the networks, and good for the game. Oh, and one more thing: it was great for the big-market, star-studded Los Angeles Lakers.
In the pregame meeting prior to Game 6, the league office sent down word that certain calls — calls that would have benefitted the Lakers — were being missed by the referees. This was the type of not-so-subtle information that I and other referees were left to interpret. After receiving the dispatch, Bavetta openly talked about the fact that the league wanted a Game 7.
"If we give the benefit of the calls to the team that's down in the series, nobody's going to complain. The series will be even at three apiece, and then the better team can win Game 7," Bavetta stated.
As history shows, Sacramento lost Game 6 in a wild come-from-behind thriller that saw the Lakers repeatedly sent to the foul line by the referees. For other NBA referees watching the game on television, it was a shameful performance by Bavetta's crew, one of the most poorly officiated games of all time.
* While anyone who's ever watched an NBA game closely will tell you that particular refs can influence the flow of a game. Refs certainly have a role in other sports, as well, although their effect is rarely so pronounced -- or so discussed. Even when a baseball umpire misses a call (or two), it is seen as just that: a missed call. Not part of an orchestrated plan emanating from the Commissioner's office. (Indeed, the missed calls in this year's ALCS resulted in umpiring changes for the World Series. Missed calls in the NBA are treated with the transparency and openness of a failed Five Year Plan in the old Soviet Union.)
* Donaghy has creditability problems, no doubt. But Bill Simmons is a favorite of the league; his new book (The Book of Basketball) on the history of the NBA(*) is number one on the New York Times best-seller list, and his calls are taken by NBA Commissioner David Stern (see BOB, page 137, footnote 89)(**)
(*) - More to come on the BOB.
(**) - Referencing that Stern believes that the advent of cable TV had a bigger impact on 'saving' the NBA than the arrival of Bird and Magic; both events occurred around 1980] "How do I know this? I called the commish and asked him. We talked for 35 minutes."
* Simmons himself has written extensively on the problem with NBA referees, including during the playoffs last spring:
We still don't know why certain referees get assigned to certain games, why Bennett Salvatore always seems to be involved when a home team needs a win to change the momentum of a series, why Joey Crawford keeps getting assigned to Spurs games, why Danny Crawford keeps getting assigned to Mavericks games, why Bill Kennedy would get assigned to a big Celtics game only six weeks after an argument cost Doc Rivers money. We are told that referees don't matter, but that's the thing: They do...
One other thing to chart: Does the NBA "control" the outcomes of certain games by assigning referees with certain call patterns? For instance, the 2008-09 Celtics were the most physical team in the league. Let's say they were leading a series 3-2 and the NBA wanted a Game 7. Would it assign some of its most whistle-happy refs to that game? Or let's say the NBA needed Utah to pull out a must-win game at home. If it had one or two refs with a history of being intimidated by tough crowds, would it feed them to the wolves in Utah? So let's see this stuff on paper. We have hundreds of stat-obsessed lunatics tracking Derek Jeter's defensive range or unearthing new ways to rip off VORP; we couldn't find a few of them to pick apart officials and assignments?
* And in the BOB (page 131), here's Simmons on the 1977-78 season:
The bad luck extended beyond Walton going down: the league barely missed out on a Sixers-Nuggets Finals in '78 ("Thompson versus the Doctor!") and a thoroughly entertaining Spurs-Suns Finals in '79 ("Davis and Westphal take on the Iceman!") If Stern had been running the league in '78 or '79, you might have seen that decade's equivalent of Dick Bavetta or Bennett Salvatore reffing a few of those pivotal Spurs-Bullets, Sixers-Bullets, and Nuggest-Sonics games. And you know it's true.(FN 79)
(FN 79)- Four perfect candidates: Seattle at Denver, '78 (Game 5, series tied at 2); Philly at Washington, '78 (Game 6, Bullets leading 3-2); Seattle at Phoenix, '79 (Game 6, Phoenix leading 3-2); Washington at San Antonio, '79 (Game 6, Spurs leading 3-2). The less sexy team won all 4 of those games. Um, this never happens anymore. Not sure if you've noticed.
* Bavetta himself told the Orland Sentinel that he may retire at the end of the year.
* Unexpected retirements are an NBA tradition in the Stern era.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The State of Manny
Speaking of Manny, it's been a bizarre ten days in Manny-World, punctuated by today's quote:
But why has Manny gone off the deep end all of a sudden? After a relatively quiet first half of the season, where the only news Manny made was that he was actually talking to the media, why are we getting another edition of Manny-World with, seemingly every news cycle?
As every one knows, the Sox own two successive options over Manny for 2009 and 2010, each for $20M each. (The Manny contract, by the way, although negotiated by Sox anti-Theo Dan Duquette, has looked better and better over time.) As also has been made clear to everyone, Manny turns 37 next May; while a 36-year old player might get a 4 year deal, it's unlikely that a 38-year old (going on 39) would get one in the winter of 2010-11.
So let's say that Manny is looking for one more contract. With each year that goes by, it becomes less and less likely that some GM will invest $90-100M to a 37 or 38-year old.
After all of that, what if I told you that Manny switched agents (to Scott Boras) last winter?
And what if I told you that if the Red Sox exercise one or both of the existing options on Manny, Boras gets paid nothing for the next two years and his previous agent collects 5% (or a cool $1M per option) for each year?
And what if I told you that as a 10/5 player, Manny can veto any trade unless the new team meets his agent's, rather, Manny's conditions? And what if those conditions included getting a four-year extension, the commission on which would be payable to Boras rather than the previous agent?
Do you think a new contract is something Mr. Boras -- or rather, Manny -- would be interested in?
Of course, there is more than a little irony in the fact that agent Boras may be trying to orchestrate the revocation of a team option; it was little more than a season ago when JD Drew opted out of his (player) option with the Dodgers to take a big payday with the Sox.
JD's agent? The same Mr. Boras.
The Red Sox don't deserve a player like me. During my years here, I've seen how they [the Red Sox] have mistreated other great players when they didn't want them to try to turn the fans against them. The Red Sox did the same with guys like Nomar Garciaparra and Pedro Martinez, and now they do the same with me. Their goal is to paint me as the bad guy. I love Boston fans, but the Red Sox don't deserve me. I'm not talking about money. Mental peace has no price, and I don't have peace here.In fact, fan sentiment has turned against Manny, at least as judged by the callers on nitwit, er, sports radio.
But why has Manny gone off the deep end all of a sudden? After a relatively quiet first half of the season, where the only news Manny made was that he was actually talking to the media, why are we getting another edition of Manny-World with, seemingly every news cycle?
As every one knows, the Sox own two successive options over Manny for 2009 and 2010, each for $20M each. (The Manny contract, by the way, although negotiated by Sox anti-Theo Dan Duquette, has looked better and better over time.) As also has been made clear to everyone, Manny turns 37 next May; while a 36-year old player might get a 4 year deal, it's unlikely that a 38-year old (going on 39) would get one in the winter of 2010-11.
So let's say that Manny is looking for one more contract. With each year that goes by, it becomes less and less likely that some GM will invest $90-100M to a 37 or 38-year old.
After all of that, what if I told you that Manny switched agents (to Scott Boras) last winter?
And what if I told you that if the Red Sox exercise one or both of the existing options on Manny, Boras gets paid nothing for the next two years and his previous agent collects 5% (or a cool $1M per option) for each year?
And what if I told you that as a 10/5 player, Manny can veto any trade unless the new team meets his agent's, rather, Manny's conditions? And what if those conditions included getting a four-year extension, the commission on which would be payable to Boras rather than the previous agent?
Do you think a new contract is something Mr. Boras -- or rather, Manny -- would be interested in?
Of course, there is more than a little irony in the fact that agent Boras may be trying to orchestrate the revocation of a team option; it was little more than a season ago when JD Drew opted out of his (player) option with the Dodgers to take a big payday with the Sox.
JD's agent? The same Mr. Boras.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Knight-errant
"All of us learn to write in the second grade. Most of us go on to greater things." -Bob Knight
Strap in, ladies and gentlemen. For the next 3 1/2 weeks, we will be exposed to General Bob Knight's analysis and commentary on ESPN's college basketball coverage. The bigwigs in Bristol are lauding their big catch, but early returns indicate that they may get more than they bargained for.
First off, Bob Knight as a member of the media is akin to Idi Amin joining Amnesty International or at the very least Coach K donning Carolina Blue. His rants against the Fourth Estate are legendary, and given his lack of respect for FCC regulations, it is a good thing ESPN is a cable network.
In his debut last night during Big East tournament coverage, there was palpable unease on the set from Rece Davis and Digger Phelps. When Digger playfully diagrammed a zone defense for Coach Knight, whose teams were famous for only playing man-to-man defense, the nervous laughter seems out of place on the usually cool, smooth and hip ESPN set.
Clearly Knight will bring honesty and an encyclopedia's worth of basketball knowledge to the programming. But what if he also brings this.....
Strap in, ladies and gentlemen. For the next 3 1/2 weeks, we will be exposed to General Bob Knight's analysis and commentary on ESPN's college basketball coverage. The bigwigs in Bristol are lauding their big catch, but early returns indicate that they may get more than they bargained for.
First off, Bob Knight as a member of the media is akin to Idi Amin joining Amnesty International or at the very least Coach K donning Carolina Blue. His rants against the Fourth Estate are legendary, and given his lack of respect for FCC regulations, it is a good thing ESPN is a cable network.
In his debut last night during Big East tournament coverage, there was palpable unease on the set from Rece Davis and Digger Phelps. When Digger playfully diagrammed a zone defense for Coach Knight, whose teams were famous for only playing man-to-man defense, the nervous laughter seems out of place on the usually cool, smooth and hip ESPN set.
Clearly Knight will bring honesty and an encyclopedia's worth of basketball knowledge to the programming. But what if he also brings this.....
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Pat Forde Discovers the A-10
A shout out to ESPN's Pat Forde, who caught up with the fact that the A-10 is having (so far) a BCS-style season.
Let's hope that the NCAA Selection Committee also is paying attention.
Since Saint Joseph's was ranked No. 1 and made a run to the Elite Eight in 2004, it has been lean times for this league. But the A-10 is cycling up right now, having a year similar to Missouri Valley's breakthrough 2006.
The A-10 has a .647 nonconference winning percentage, its best in 14 years and the fourth-best since the league was founded 31 seasons ago. The conference RPI ranks seventh nationally, after being 10th last year, 11th in 2006 and 15th in 2005.
Let's hope that the NCAA Selection Committee also is paying attention.
Friday, February 8, 2008
A-10 in the Top 25
A little more college basketball: a conference that you (probably) haven't thought about this year is having a very good season, at least according to the (much-maligned) RPI. Here are the Atlantic-10 standings:
4 teams in the top-25 RPI is nothing to sneer at, although the season is still young. The A-10 is not getting much respect from AP voters, with just one school (Xavier, #13) in the top-25, and two others (Rhode Island, St. Joes) ARV. ESPN's Joe Lunardi has Rhode Island in, and St. Joes out, of the NCAA Tournament.
Through games of Thursday, February 7
Overall / Conf / Overall
W-L / W-L / RPI
Xavier 19-4 / 7-1 / 15
Saint Joseph's 15-6 / 6-2 / 45
Rhode Island 19-4 / 5-3 / 23
Richmond 12-9 / 5-3 / 102
Temple 11-10 / 4-3 / 79
Charlotte 13-8 / 4-3 / 89
Dayton 16-5 / 4-4 / 14
Massachusetts 15-7 / 4-4 / 22
Duquesne 14-7 / 4-4 / 91
La Salle 8-12 / 4-4 / 190
St. Louis 11-10 / 3-5 / 122
Fordham 7-11 / 2-5 / 180
St. Bonaventure 7-14 / 1-6 / 235
George Washington 5-13 / 1-7 / 254
4 teams in the top-25 RPI is nothing to sneer at, although the season is still young. The A-10 is not getting much respect from AP voters, with just one school (Xavier, #13) in the top-25, and two others (Rhode Island, St. Joes) ARV. ESPN's Joe Lunardi has Rhode Island in, and St. Joes out, of the NCAA Tournament.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Must-Win Game(s) 3
ESPN briefly flashed a graphic last night in the midst of the Chicago Bulls meltdown (blowing a 19 point lead in a must-win Game Three against the Pistons):
What's interesting is that (i) hockey has had more 3-0 leads than the other two sports combined (although the tradition of the MLB with no playoffs until 1969 (only the World Series prior) must have some impact); and (ii) that the Red Sox's comeback in 2004 is such an anomaly (baseball, with its high element of chance, would seem to give more rise to more comebacks than the other two sports - instead the Red Sox are the only team to dig out of the hole.)
New Jersey and Golden State each face must-win Game Threes in the 24 hours. San Antonio faces a "Almost-Must-Win" Game Three as well, although the Spurs seem likely to win.
Comebacks from 0-3
NBA 0-81
MLB 1-28
NHL 2-147
What's interesting is that (i) hockey has had more 3-0 leads than the other two sports combined (although the tradition of the MLB with no playoffs until 1969 (only the World Series prior) must have some impact); and (ii) that the Red Sox's comeback in 2004 is such an anomaly (baseball, with its high element of chance, would seem to give more rise to more comebacks than the other two sports - instead the Red Sox are the only team to dig out of the hole.)
New Jersey and Golden State each face must-win Game Threes in the 24 hours. San Antonio faces a "Almost-Must-Win" Game Three as well, although the Spurs seem likely to win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)