Your favorite player on your favorite team blows by his defender, slashes through the lane and dunks on a 7'0 center. They're only down by two possessions. They're coming back and they just grabbed the momentum...
Then a time out is taken by the opposing team.
Three minutes later, despite the interruption, your club steals an in-bounds pass, goes coast-to-coast and drills a three, cutting the deficit to a mere three points. They're really rolling now...
It's time for the "under seven-minutes break."
Suddenly, not only is the momentum completely sucked out of the players, coaches and fans for your team, but you're seriously considering popping in a movie to watch during all the time outs. What's the deal with all these time outs anyway?
Couple what feels like an unlimited amount of time outs given to each team with "TV time outs" several times each half and what you have is a painstaking test of patience. If there were anything else even remotely interesting on any other channel, CBS wouldn't be able to get away with it. As it is, there is nothing we can do but refill our snack tray and sit through each and every stoppage of play.
The problem here isn't television time outs. I understand that a station can't run an uninterrupted basketball game. This is the biggest money-maker CBS has and I expect them to milk it for all it's worth. The real issue is the allotment of time outs given to a team.
In basketball, a time out is typically only used for two reasons. First is to stop momentum, as in the example above. Second is to stop the clock late in the game with the hopes that a team can score, call time out, draw up a play, etc. No matter what the cause of the time out is, it's always annoying.
What would happen if each team was only given one time out per half? We would have a game with true momentum swings where the players on the court had to figure things out, not the coaches. We would have fewer frustrating interruptions for the fans. Players would have to be in better shape or substitute more often. Rather than the last minute being a frenzy, the last five minutes would be all-out drama.
Have you seen a picture of Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire or Jose Canseco during the early stages of their careers? It's completely hilarious. They are stick-figures with skinny arms and legs pointing out from their uniforms. They don't even resemble their future selves. Those were the pre-juice days.
Today in Washington, several players will testify before congress regarding their use of steroids. Whether they talk or plead the fifth, we all know what went down.
Their appearance changed drastically. Several players around the big leagues put on 30-40 pounds of raw muscle over the course of a winter or two. Along with the improved appearance, their production spiked as well. In a previous column, I broke down Barry Bonds' power stats from when he was young and skinny compared to when he was old and ripped. The numbers (nearly twice as many home runs coming after the age of 31) speak for themselves.
But there are other things that suggest the presence of steroids. Major League Baseball's newest policy, which was supposed to be so tough on steroids, contains a provision that testing would be suspended immediately if the government conducts an independent investigation into drug use in baseball. Think they might have something to hide?
Also, according to the Boston Herald, MLB's political action committee contributed $216,788 to members of congress during the 2003-2004 election cycle. Those congressmen included a ranking Democrat on the committee investigating steroids in baseball. That, along with everything else, is quite a coincidence.
After all the players who have come clean and admitted guilt, it's foolish to believe steroids aren't prevalent in baseball. What that means (i.e. should some records have asterisks?) is a debate for another day.
The Oakland Golden Grizzlies are living it up...for a short while. After starting the season 7-18, the Grizz have rattled off six consecutive wins. They came from nowhere to win their conference tourney and continued the roll by winning the first NCAA tournament game of the Madness. Oakland defeated Alabama A&M in the play-in game Tuesday night by a final score of 79-69.
Of course, no one knows this. The poor team qualifies for the tourney by fighting tooth-and-nail to earn an automatic bid, then they're told they don't even get in the real tourney. They're in the play-in game. That game isn't even on anyone's office pool, and that means you aren't really in the tournament. Of course, the team we should feel bad for is Alabama A&M. They were one-and-done before the real tourney even started.
Starting tomorrow, the Madness truly begins. Unfortunately, it also ends for the Grizzlies as they face top-seeded North Carolina. Adding insult to injury, the game will be played in Charlotte.
So let's hope the Grizzlies are enjoying themselves now. Or...maybe they'll continue their hot streak. After all, that's why they play the games, right? Maybe UNC will come in a little overconfident and the Grizz will pull off another upset. Then another. And another. This squad that played Division 2 until a few years ago could become the biggest Cinderella Story ever.
Maybe the Oakland Golden Grizzlies will make the Final Four. Maybe they'll win the national championship. Ever heard of a national champion with a final record just one game over .500? That would be the Grizzlies.
Then again, maybe not. But hopefully they won't be too embarrassed.
If you listen to the local media, especially the crew up in the Twin Cities, you'll look at the game that pits the 8-seed vs. 9-seed in the Syracuse region and pick Minnesota without a second thought. If you're a "homer" who likes to pick your favorite teams so you can cheer wholeheartedly through the tournament, then go with the Gophs. But if you're a serious bracketologist, you might want to look a little deeper.
Let me admit here that I am an Iowa State alumnus and a Cyclone. I concede that, since college, I haven't been a big Gopher fan. I cheer for them most of the time but, truth be told, I'm a Cyclone. Still, the analysis I'm about to indulge in is as objective as I can make it. And that analysis tells me to pick the Cyclones.
When I've watched the Gophers play this season, they seemed to be a one-man team. The Gophers go as Vincent Grier goes. The junior scores 18 points per game, with Jeff Hagen being the only other player in double-digits with 11. Although Minnesota played Illinois pretty tough, the end of the game was nothing but giving the ball to Grier and letting him try to score. He didn't create offense and dish the ball off, he tried to score. Every time. That seems to be the trend for Minnesota. If the Cyclones shut down Vincent Grier, they shut down the Gophers.
ISU, on the other hand, has a few more weapons. There is no doubt that Curtis Stinson, at 17 points per game, is the leader of the team. But they have two other valid scoring threats in senior center Jared Homan (13 ppg) and sophomore guard Will Blalock (12.8 ppg). Also, freshman Tasheed Carr has made huge strides this season and is poised to have a big tourney. Not to mention the fact that the Cyclones are a defensive club.
Iowa State has also proven that they can play with anyone in the nation when they're hot. In one of those hot stretches from January 29th to February 19th, ISU won seven straight conference games including wins against #15 Oklahoma, #18 Texas, #23 Texas Tech and #2 Kansas. Two of those, including the Kansas game, were on the road.
The Gophers are 1-6 against ranked teams this season.
Selection Sunday was quite a day for the state of Iowa. The day started with three bubble teams and ended with all three squads still alive in the final field of 65. Iowa State was thought to have the best chance. In fact their win over Baylor in the first round of the Big 12 tournament pretty much sealed the deal. After starting the conference season with five straight losses, the Cyclones rattled off seven straight conference wins, including four over ranked opponents. But still, you never know.
The Iowa Hawkeyes have been on the bubble for quite some time. The Hawks finished the Big Ten season three games behind Indiana, a team that didn't make the tournament. But they fought their way into the dance. Iowa ran off five wins in their last six games, including a narrow victory over 15th ranked Michigan State. Non-conference wins over ranked teams like Louisville and Texas punched their ticket. Still, a 10-seed was completely unexpected.
And then there's Northern Iowa. The team most of the country thinks is a Division 2 squad. And why not? The Panthers finished fourth in the Missouri Valley Conference. This club played only one ranked team all year, and lost. Still, they did win seven of their last 10 games, and somehow snatched an at-large bid, sneaking in as an 11-seed.
Iowa isn't the first place that comes to mind when thinking of the best basketball states in the nation, but maybe it deserves more respect. After all, here in Minnesota we have only one D-1 team, and they barely snuck in with some late-season wins. Our friends to the south have three D-1 teams and all sneaked in.
Minnesota's only opportunity to regain some respect will be to beat ISU on Friday morning. But that's not likely to happen. More on that tomorrow.
With the acquisitions of Fred Smoot and Darren Sharper, the Vikings will have something new: a defensive secondary. Not since the days of Joey Browner have we had any talent to speak of behind the linebackers. Now we do.
Fred Smoot, who had three picks and 56 solo tackles last season, is also going to be fun to listen to. Try this quote on for size. "Water covers 65% of the world. The other 35% is covered by Smoot." This guy is going to be fun.
And now Darren Sharper, who we've seen in action during his time with the Packers, joins the crew. No more Ken Irvin. No more Rushen Jones. And thank goodness, no more Ralph Brown.
Although each year in recent memory the Vikings have claimed to have a better defense, this time they're on to something. The Williams' will dominate the defensive line, allowing Udeze, Johnstone and Mixon to appear better than they are. Smoot, Sharper and Winfield will cover receivers like a blanket, or at least successfully take care of their assignments, making guys like Brian Williams and Willie Offord less vulnerable. As for the linebackers...well, we still have some issues there. Hopefully Napoleon Harris will make this core better, but the linebackers will still be our weak spot.
Still, two out of three segments of the defense are solid this year. Maybe even great. After so many years of an all-around terrible defense, I can live with that.
