The Big Ten conference isn't supposed to be any good this year. It's been top-heavy all season, with Illinois and everybody else. But in the only time of year that matters--March Madness--the Big Ten has dwarfed all other conferences by producing three of the final eight teams remaining.
That in itself is a big accomplishment for a conference in which only one team got any real publicity this season. But if the Big Ten can continue the run and propel all three remaining clubs into the Final Four, it would indeed be an accomplishment.
Having three teams in the Elite Eight isn't abnormal. Granted, the Big Ten is the last power conference most people would have chosen to pull it off this season, but the feat itself is fairly common. In 2003 it was the Big 12 and several other conferences did it prior to that. But three in the Final Four? Only once has that happened. No, Dick Vitale and the rest of the ESPN crew, it wasn't your all-powerful ACC. It was the Big East when Villanova, Georgetown and St. John's all got there 20 years ago.
In 2005, it's not about to happen. Illinois will enter their game favored over Arizona, and will probably win. But Wisconsin and Michigan State shouldn't even be where they are.
The Badgers are a 6-seed. They have advanced to the field of eight without pulling off an upset. They beat 11th seeded Northern Iowa, 13th seeded Bucknell and 10th seeded N.C. State. They have kept under the radar and sneaked into the Elite Eight, where their run will most likely end.
Michigan State had a similar path, with one glaring exception. The 5th seeded Spartans beat 12th seeded Old Dominion and 13th seeded Vermont before pulling off the second-biggest upset of the tourney (behind Kansas-Bucknell) with a win over Duke. When Michigan State, who has been in 5 of the last 7 Elite Eights, hits the month of March, anything can happen.
Best case scenario, the Big Ten has half the field in the Final Four. That would be a huge accomplishment for a conference thought to be so poor this year. But three out of the Final Four? That's out of the question.
His coach called it "bizarre." I call it hilarious.
If you haven't seen footage of Gopher hockey player Tyler Hirsch slamming himself into the net after Minnesota's loss to Colorado College in the semifinals of the WCHA playoffs, you might want to hit up Google and find it. Coach Don Lucia was right about one thing: it's definitely bizarre.
Apparently, Lucia got in Hirsch's face at some point in a recent game and told him he wasn't going to the net hard enough. Lucia followed up his speech by benching Hirsch. After the game, the Gophers leading scorer decided to show his coach, and all the fans still packing the rafters, just how hard he can go to the net.
With the ice completely empty, Hirsch skated to center ice, handling a puck with his stick. Then he skated, full speed, toward the goal. About ten feet before reaching the net (still going full speed) Hirsch ripped off a slap shot, then catapulted himself into the net, dislodging it from the ice. Both Hirsch and the unsuspecting net tumbled to the ice.
That looked like it was all Hirsch had planned, but just before he reached the bench, he veered back to center ice and placed his stick down, Terrell Owens-like. Then, finally, he skated off the ice.
It was an astonishing display of...well, no one really knows what. But something. Something odd. Something strangely hockey. Something Canadian, if only Hirsch didn't hail from Faribault.
The 5'9'', 172-pound junior is back on the ice for Minnesota's practices now, but he's not yet cleared to play in games. I would expect, with the Gophers again well-positioned on the road to the Frozen Four, that Lucia will welcome his leading scorer back with open arms, after he lets him sit for a while longer to prove a point.
Andrew Bogut is a 7-foot center for the sweet-16-bound Utah Utes. He looks a little gangly and uncoordinated. The first time I saw him play, I was reminded of Quasi Modo on steroids. But when you see him play, I guarantee you'll be floored.
Bogut owns the lane. With an enormous wing-span on top of his 7-foot frame, Bogut swats or alters any shot within eight feet of the basket. His rebounding ability--again, funny looking--is unparalleled in college basketball.
Offensively, Bogut is at his best. His low-post play is unstoppable, his passing crisp and his range surprising. In the first round of the NCAA tournament, the Australian poured in 24 points to go with 11 boards. The performance was enough to convince Oklahoma that they could beat Utah as long as Bogut didn't score. In response, Bogut scored just 10 points on a miniscule 7 shots, but killed the Sooners with 11 rebounds, seven assists and enough decoys to seal the win for Utah.
The argument--and it's a good one--is that Bogut is just one player and doesn't have a lot around him. If and when the Utes run into a team like North Carolina, Bogut will have to deal with several big men. Just like Iowa State's Jared Homan, he may be able to hang with any of them--and maybe be better than any of them--but teams like UNC have two or three big guys in at once.
The difference is that the Utes, unlike the Cyclones, will try to slow the pace. They will make it a half-court game in which Bogut can shine. He is bigger than any UNC post player and can handle several at once. The only thing that will stop the Utes is a fast-breaking team that can force Utah into a up-and-down game, basically eliminating Bogut from the equation.
If that doesn't happen, look for Utah to make a serious run toward the Final Four.
I was shocked to read that Barry Bonds has said he might have to miss the entire '05 season. The guy is 52 home runs away from overtaking Hank Aaron as the all-time home run king. He launched 45 long balls last year, and it would have been a lot more if anyone would have pitched to him. Now he might not play? With a guy his age--who is no longer taking steroids--that could mean the end of his career.
Speaking of taking steroids, is it a coincidence that Bonds was astonishingly healthy throughout the later years of his career--in fact he put on pounds of raw muscle in his late 30's--but as soon as it becomes too dangerous for him to take steroids, he suddenly gets hurt?
Bonds said, "Right now I'm just going to try to rehab myself to get back to, I don't know, hopefully next season, hopefully the middle of the season. I don't know...I'm 40 years old, not 20, 30."
It was almost like a kid pouting. "No Jimmy, you're not allowed to have the king size candy bar. I'll buy you a regular size one." The kid replies, "No, if I can't have the big one, I don't want anything." Only here it's, "No Barry, you're not allowed to take steroids to help with your recovery." Barry's reply? "I'm 40 years old, not 20, 30."
Although I would never wish harm on anyone, there would be a certain sense of equalizing karma if Bonds' career was cut short due to this injury. In all likelihood, Bonds took steroids to enhance his performance and aid his physical recovery during a 162-game season. He then went on a tear with his power numbers and it looked like Aaron's record was all but broken. It was just a matter of time. Then, out of the blue, the steroid scandal hits. Amidst the controversy, Bonds was forced to stop taking the illegal drug. Coincidentally (maybe) he gets injured. Without the steroids his body has come to rely on, his recovery time is prolonged to the point that his career is essentially over, preventing him from breaking the record and saving us a huge asterisk debate.
Paul Siras did everything you can ask of a coach. He made progress. He turned a loser into a winner. In exchange for doing that, he was given the same gift so many professional coaches are given these days: a pink slip.
Under Silas, the Cleveland Cavaliers started as the worst team in the NBA. Last year, they improved to 35 wins. The consistent improvement has continued this season and the Cavs have posted 34 wins already. They still have a good chance of making the playoffs. But the team hit a 3-9 slide recently, so Silas was canned.
The speculation is that Silas was fired partially as a way to keep LaBron James happy enough to stay in Cleveland. I would think consistent improvement, the chance to emerge as the game's most hyped superstar and a chance to make the playoffs this early in his career would be enough to keep James happy. Even if it isn't, Silas shouldn't be the sacrificial lamb.
I might sound like an old-schooler here, but there was a time when players played and coaches coached. In other words, players didn't run the organization. Now all a star player has to do is demand that his coach be fired, and it's done. As if that isn't bad enough, in this case, Silas wasn't fired because James publicly announced that he wanted him gone, he was canned because there was speculation that James might be unhappy with how things were going. That takes an unfortunate situation and makes it utterly ridiculous.
Players--especially 20-year-old players two years removed from high school--shouldn't be in charge of decisions such as who coaches the team. They are too flighty, irresponsible and immature. Still, teams give them more influence than coaches who have spent 60 years around the game. Something is wrong with that scenario. Maybe that's why the NBA is in such a sorry state.
As I updated my NCAA picks after the first day of second round games I realized, just as I do every year about this time, that I'm not going to win any money. I've thrown away fifteen perfectly good dollars. These dollars could have been spent on a movie, dinner or Twins tickets. Instead, I used them to get into three separate NCAA pools, thinking at least one of them would have enough correct picks to make the Sweet 16 exciting. Now I look back and, as always, perform the post-mortem.
In previous years, I had always entered just one pool. The logic was that I could cheer hard for those teams and not be torn over whether I want a team to win or lose, depending on the pool I'm looking at. This year, I decided the freedom to cheer hard came second to a chance at some winner's cash. Hence the three pools.
The problem is that I failed to realize that the stars had aligned just so, the ancient Greek gods had devised a plan against me and fate was sure to take it's course. No matter what.
In my first pool I took Gonzaga to make it to the Final Four. Did I really think they would make it? Not really. But I had two other pools where I would pick them to lose early.
Then there was Wake Forest. Making the mistake of listening to the "experts" on ESPN.com, I decided to make Wake Forest a Final Four team on a different pool. I knew the ESPN analysts give the ACC too much credit, but didn't act on that instinct.
Finally, there was Oklahoma. The Sooners, with Longar Longar coming off the bench and giving them a little local flavor, were tough to pick against. They're in the Big 12, they had been ranked most of the season. I had seen them destroy some tough opponents. So I made the jump. It's only one of three pools anyway. OU can be in the Final Four too.
Not only did these three teams all lose, they also managed to ruin each and every one of my pools. I couldn't have clustered them all together into one pool. Then I would still have two chances. No, I had to spread them out so they could infect all three.
I think I owe an apology to these schools, their players, coaches and fans. I cursed them. As soon as I put them down as winners, it was all over for them.
So I'm sorry Gonzaga, Wake Forest and Oklahoma. Next year I'll pick against you.
