A Case for Sports Pain

 Basketball, College Basketball, The Bigger Picture  Comments Off on A Case for Sports Pain
Feb 132014
 
tweet

Or… Justifying Wednesday Night RAW

It’s probably an understatement how raw I feel at the moment. Here’s the reason. Don’t make me talk about it. In fact, I think this tweet perfectly encapsulates how most people should deal with me after a close loss:

This next tweet doesn’t describe how I feel after every loss but it most certainly applies tonight. Yes it does, yes it does, yes it does.

Anyway, I know I take sports pretty seriously. It opens me up to feeling really horrible at times. It also affords me ridiculous feelings of elation and euphoria. I’ve said that I do consider myself a pretty lucky fan overall so I’m not lamenting my current position. Too much.

Those who understand will, even if they’re on the opposite side, at least have some sympathy. However, some folks won’t/don’t/can’t understand how or why sports can bring a person so low. The best they can do is give a jagoff like me a wide berth when I’m pissed off. But they do so shaking their heads. I don’t think it’s lack of empathy. Perhaps, lack of imagination. In a way, I pity them.

Continue reading »

The Fates of College Basketball’s Blue Bloods

 Basketball, College Basketball, The Bigger Picture  Comments Off on The Fates of College Basketball’s Blue Bloods
Jan 252014
 
Former Pitt guard and current Arizona basketball coach, Sean Miller

… And Those Who Aspire to Join Them

bluebloodI’ve been thinking about the Blue Bloods of college basketball. The programs that are the elite of the elite. That you automatically expect to be ranked in any given week. That you automatically expect will make the NCAA tournament. Whose fan bases and administrations are so irrational that they will contemplate firing a coach for not winning a National Title or getting to a Final Four once every couple years.

Kansas, UCLA, Kentucky, UNC, Indiana, Georgetown, Michigan State. The historical titans of the game.

Yes, I left off Duke and Syracuse. I haven’t included Florida. I think Duke and Syracuse are better programs than Georgetown or Indiana at the moment.

To be truly mentioned among the titans of the game, a program has to survive the loss of its legendary coach. UCLA basketball will always be associated with John Wooden but what makes this program the elite of the elite is that it has survived and thrived after Wooden. Choppy waters along the way but UCLA can still capture the national imagination and does own a National Title, post-Wooden.

Duke and Syracuse are undoubtedly among the modern giants of the game. But the legends of these schools coach them right now. Duke was a very good program prior to Krysysskwsswwskksi in the same way that Penn State football was a very good program prior to Joe Paterno. Syracuse had a little bit of history but was not held in the same regard before Jim Boeheim’s tenure. In fact, Boeheim was hired only after the previous head coach was hired away by Tulane.

Continue reading »

Jul 242013
 

The ACC media poll is out and Pitt was picked fifth in the Coastal Division. Wait, who’s in the ACC Coastal Division? Let’s take a look:

Coastal Division
(First place votes in parenthesis)
1. Miami (65) 736
2. Virginia Tech (27) 654
3. North Carolina (22) 649
4. Georgia Tech (6) 522
5. Pitt 313
6. Virginia 230
7. Duke 228

I can’t say I disagree strongly with these rankings though I’m not sure that UNC or Georgia Tech really deserved any first-place votes. However both programs are in a stronger position than Pitt (for now). Considering that it’s only year two of Paul Chryst’s tenure, breaking in a new starting RB tandem and a new QB, I’ll be happy with 7 wins and a bowl game. Continue reading »

Jan 112013
 

… Or Yes, We Like to Get Ahead of Ourselves at Pitt

Ok, so the ACC released their schedules for the 2013 and coupled with a scheduled home game against Notre Dame, there is awesomeness all around for Pitt fans:

2013
Home Away
Villanova at Navy
New Mexico at Duke
Notre Dame at Georgia Tech
Florida State at Syracuse
Miami at Virginia Tech
UNC
UVA

But since I’m a Pitt fan and we forever live in the land of hope and tomorrow. Here’s a projection of Pitt’s home schedules in the next couple years afterwards:

2014
Home Away
Delaware at Notre Dame
Iowa at FSU
Akron at Miami
Duke at UNC
Georgia Tech at UVA
Syracuse
Virginia Tech

Continue reading »

Feb 192010
 

… or How to Silence Orrin Hatch

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced that the Big Ten will take Mizzou if they fail to land Texas. Mizzou isn’t a slam-dunk addition like Texas but it does meet the Big Ten’s academic requirements and it’s a large flagship school which brings the St. Louis and KC markets into the Big Ten footprint. The other major candidate, Pitt, clinches the rest of the Pittsburgh market and brings a decent added presence in the northeast but PSU already has strong market coverage in the northeast. Forget about Syracuse and Rutgers, which don’t guarantee NYC, which is a Pro town anyway. And Nebraska and OU don’t add enough market presence.

Let’s also think about the musical chairs in a collective sense. If the Big Ten took Pitt (or Syracuse or Rutgers), it could very well wreck the Big East as a football conference. What people fail to take into account when criticizing the Big East’s BCS status (which btw we’ve quite well enough to maintain our standing) is that it is to the BCS’ advantage to have the Big East included. Politically, you can’t shut out that many northeastern FBS schools, especially tradition-rich schools like Pitt, WVU and Syracuse as well as up-and-comers like Rutgers and UConn. You want a slight majority of FBS universities in the BCS; thus, the less likely it is to fall prey to anti-trust action. That’s not an argument for the BCS to expand by adding the MWC – that would be overkill. But just a few more teams will suffice.

Let’s follow the dominoes:
1) Big Ten takes Mizzou from the Big XII.
2) PAC-10 takes Colorado and Utah from the Big XII and MWC, respectively.
3) Big XII takes TCU and BYU from the MWC to fill the gaps left by Colorado’s & Mizzou’s departures.

Bam, there go the three strongest long-term football-playing institutions. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) will shut up about a playoff once his state’s two biggest schools are part of the big dawg’s club. TCU is currently the strongest school in Texas that’s not in a BCS conference. The lone wolf left out in the cold is Boise State, which I’m convinced will fall into disrepair anyway in a few years once Chris Peterson leaves. In fact, I’d posit that Boise State not getting into a BCS conference will hasten his departure and Boise State’s demise. Plus, Idaho doesn’t have enough political clout to bring down the BCS; the Mormon state is the key because they have two strong FBS schools.

The paths of BCS teams leaving one conference or another is irrelevant. Texas to the Big Ten or PAC-10 – Texas A&M following big-brother Texas or not – Colorado leaving for the PAC-10 – Mizzou going to the Big Ten – all that matters is to make just enough room for BYU, Utah and TCU to move up. (Personally, I feel that Houston is a stronger long-term prospect than TCU because of enrollment and potential market size but they’re only just starting their revival under Kevin Sumlin, who may leave soon anyway. But I digress…)

The end result is that the gravy train is expanded just a smidge to include a couple relatively deserving FBS schools (as compared to the likes of Wazzu & Miss St, at least) and the BCS rolls on, still scorned but stronger than ever. A plus-one/four-team playoff may eventually happen but it’ll never get larger than that.

Shellfishly, us old-time northeasterners want the Keystone State rivalry to be renewed, which drives a lot of people around here who want Pitt in the Big Ten. Fair enough, but if FSU/UF and UGA/GT can play OOC every year, the same can happen for Pitt/Pennstate. We just need some time for JoePa to finally retire and then a couple years afterwards for scheduling to get worked out. It will happen by the latter half of the decade. Patience, my friends, patience.

In the meantime, remember that moreso than cultural or historical fit, conference expansion is about market size, market size, market size.

Feb 162010
 

So we’re all reading tons and tons about the Big Ten candidacies of Pitt, RU, Syracuse, Mizzou, Nebraska, Texas and its little lonestar sisters. And then there’s the PAC-10 possibly poaching from a list that includes Texas, Colorado or Utah. And then the Big XII turning around and choosing from a list that includes Utah, BYU, TCU and Houston. And the Big East fighting for survival with a list that includes UCF, Memphis & Temple or dream-gets like UMD or BC.

That’s five of the six BcS conferences looking to shake up the college sports landscape with resultant repercussions for Conference USA, the WAC and MWC.

In all this discussion, why do we not mention the reigning behemoth – the SEC? What’s to prevent the SEC from going after … TEXAS? And why not? 12 is only the minimum for a conf title game. Adding Texas and either OU, Texas A&M or Texas Tech would be beyond blockbuster. It would shatter everything in college sports.

I recognize that the Big Ten makes more money than even the SEC and the SEC is probably pretty content at 12 teams, which makes the Big Ten and PAC-10 far more likely moves for the Longhorns. Still, it’s worth pondering though in the final analysis,  I can’t see Texas moving; the Texas legislature just wouldn’t allow a move that could harm its Lonestar little sisters.

Photo Credit: burntorangenation.com