NBA All Stars: Should fans decide - part two

NBA All Stars: Should fans decide - part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-31-14)

[Part one - All Star teams collide]



TODD:
I have to address the more important issue now, Kobe Bryant. His inclusion in the starting lineup of the NBA All-Star game bothers me for myriad of reasons. This is a fan vote of course, but that doesn't mean the fans deserve it.

What is happening here is the NBA is turning into the MLB. Either the game counts or it doesn't. And what I mean is not literally whether who wins the All-Star game matters in basketball like in baseball. But the game acknowledgement does. A player making an All-Star game is historic. It matters for the legacy of a player, as well as the story of the league.

As you pointed out, Kobe's run of All-Star invites will continue. This will mark his 16th selection in his 18-year career. When it comes time to determine Hall of Fame resumes and where a player stands in the pantheon of his sport, All-Star games are often referenced. When next generation's Bill Simmons releases The Book of Basketball Part Two and tries to determine who is the better Laker between Kobe and Magic Johnson, the All-Star game appearances will come up. And you know what? In forty years, no one is going to remember that Kobe's 2014 selection was a joke and a debacle. It will just be an appearance like any of the others.

I guess my problem with the fan vote is that they are too stupid to be given this kind of power. There are only three solutions. Here they are, in order of practicality from "impossible" to "why is this not already the case?!?":

1. Lessen the historical value of a player making an All-Star game. Value All-NBA team selections instead and phase out the worth of the All-Star game appearance itself.

2. Don't let fans vote. Fans are, by definition, biased and crazy.

3. Give the fans a crop of players to vote from for the starting lineups. A player such as Kobe Bryant would not be eligible since he's barely played this season.

Tell me why number three wouldn't work.


DAN:
I'm glad you acknowledged the ridiculousness of options one and two. There are very few benchmarks to compare players between generations. All Star game appearances is one of the best, disregarding the obvious caveat where a player past his prime continues to get voted in. And we have to let the fans vote. The All Star game is just a show. There is little to no defense played, so it is literally (spoken a la Rob Lowe's character from Parks and Recreation) a fun event for the fans to enjoy. They should get to see who they want, with one caveat that you very nicely addressed in option three.

I really like the idea of giving the fans a specific ballot, but leaving Kobe Bryant off entirely would be a HUGE mistake by the NBA. The All Star voting is international. The NBA wants to grow the sport internationally. Kobe Bryant is the most popular and most famous NBA player internationally. See the problem? He got voted in because the world still loves him and probably doesn't even realize he's been injured, or doesn't care. I know this speaks to a different issue, but the NBA has to market its most popular players and Kobe Bryant is up there in the top three, if not number one.

It would however be easy for the NBA to get the final All Star voting results, look at them and rule that a player must have played in at least 50% of his team's games this season to be a starter. The player can still be on the All Star team, but they can't be considered a starter if they've played less than half of his team's games. This is not a particularly unfair rule and still leaves voting in the hands of the fans. Let them vote in all the hurt guys they want, but they won't be named a starter because they've been injured or suspended.

Did I solve your problem?


TODD:
That fails to solve the problem of a player's career resume being bumped up by faulty selections. The fact that a player is actually "starting" the game is irrelevant to me. Kobe Bryant did not deserve to be named an All-Star this season. Thus, he should not have been on the ballot if we can't trust fans to actually make that distinction.

This event is not supposed to be a popularity contest. It is supposed to reward the players who are having the best season. Otherwise, Jeremy Lin should just be starting point guard for both teams. Let him switch sides at halftime.

[If you missed Part one - All Star teams collide]

NBA All Star teams collide - part one

NBA All Star teams collide - part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (1-27-14)



DAN:
The lineups for the NBA All Star teams got announced and there are a few obvious points of contention and one major question. Obviously Kobe Bryant starting for the West is a classic case of fan intervention. He's barely played this season, but his streak of All Star games will remain intact.

I want to know, who do you like in a straight up match of five on five? The East starters or those from the West?

Eastern Conference

LeBron James, MIA
Paul George, IND
Carmelo Anthony, NYK
Dwyane Wade, MIA
Kyrie Irving, CLE

Western Conference

Kevin Durant, OKC
Stephen Curry, GS
Kobe Bryant, LAL
Blake Griffin, LAC
Kevin Love, MIN

I'm thinking complete package for my team of five and not getting caught up on the LeBron James bandwagon. Right now, during the 2014 season Kevin Durant is rivaling LeBron for greatest player in the league. Blake Griffin and Kevin Love can take Paul George and I'll take hobbled Kobe over hobbled Dwyane Wade thank you very much.

That brings us to our final players for each starting squad. Kyrie Irving and Carmelo Anthony to match up with Stephen Curry. I'll take Curry over either one of those men individually. Yes, yes the Paul George double team could hold us back, leaving either Melo or Irving alone on the perimeter. But it won't matter; we'll be raining so many three pointers your squad will crying to their mamas.


TODD:
I want to talk about Kobe Bean Bryant, but let me first address these "lineups" you referenced.

Everyone, including me, was all for the removal of the mandatory center position on the All-Star starting lineup. It was instead replaced by a declaration of simply "front court player." However, it is clear that this generalization was taken too far. The East does not even have a feasible team to trot out. Hopefully, for their sake, Dwyane Wade is not able to play and they can replace him with an actual front court player. Right now, the East is comprised on two guards, two small forwards and whatever you want to categorize LeBron James as.

Fortunately, the West isn't much better in terms of mismatches. Kevin Durant is a stretch four. Kevin Love and Blake Griffin are legitimate power forwards except neither one of them can protect the rim on defense. The best shot-blocker in the starting lineups is probably Durant. As of 1/26, not a single one of these 10 men was in the top 40 in the NBA in blocks. It's a bit ridiculous.

Because of this, it seems arbitrary to even field your question on which side would win a five on five matchup. Not only are all 10 of these guys not going to be healthy enough to play, but these 10 men hardly resemble two workable starting lineups.

If they were going to suit up, the game would really come down to one matchup though.

Kyrie Irving and Stephen Curry could match each other even if Curry is a better shooter; neither is a very good defensive player and both would probably score at will (in what will become a theme here).

Kobe and Wade, as you mentioned, could also hold each other down, or at least match each other offensively with their old men games of semi-post-ups and half fades.

Paul George could guard Durant as well as any human can. George is one of the most physically gifted wings in the NBA. Durant does look like the league MVP at the halfway mark of the season, but PG was the MVP at the quarter mark, so he's nothing to sniff at.

Carmelo would then slot onto Blake Griffin. Neither could really stop the other in the post, so it would just be a scoring barrage. But this is the All-Star game after all.

That leaves just two men to check each other: the Akron Hammer and poor, poor Kevin Love. Love is probably the best combination of rebounding and outside shooting we have in the league right now, but he cannot hope to contain LeBron in any facet of the game. The West would have to employ some sort of rotation zone and force the East to beat them from the outside. This is a plausible tactic as the East does not have anywhere near the shooters the West does. However, athletically and fundamentally, the East has a huge edge just because they are playing with the skill sets of five smalls.

If the West had been given an actual center who could block shots or someone more imposing than either Griffin or Love, I would like its chances. However, as it stands, the East has the edge simply because there is no spot on the court where the West can take advantage of them.

[Part two - Should fans decide?]

NBA Season of Déjà vu Season of Déjà vu - Part two

NBA Season of Déjà vu Season of Déjà vu - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (12-6-13)

[Part one - Season of Déjà vu]



TODD:
Picking a surprise team from the East is tricky. On the surface, someone like Toronto would qualify. They are below .500 and have been struggling. But because of the division standings, they are currently fourth in the conference...not much of a sleeper. I really liked what the Hawks and Pistons did in the offseason so they are teams to keep an eye on. Twenty games in is a quality sample size but not enough to mark a team as dead. Look for the Pistons and Hawks to both battle for one of those top four seeds to secure home court advantage in the first round.

Although the Boston Celtics have pretty much the same record as these teams, I don't see the playoff sleeper potential here. If anything, they've been playing over their heads. It made too much sense for them to tank this season. Scratching out a seven or eight seed now doesn't help them long term. There isn't enough talent on the roster to surprise anyone in the playoffs.


DAN:
Yeah, I was grasping for a glamour pick with the Celtics as sleeper. Let's just face it, the Eastern Conference is not very good. Every team is average and lacks a reason for a casual fan to watch them. I'll move on to the West.

In the Western Conference all of the top eight teams are over .500; what a contrast to the East! I'm pulling hard for Portland to hang on and lead the pack. And there is serious upset potential come playoff time. The Lakers and Grizzlies are lurking over the final playoff spots, as is Phoenix, and I say at least one of them snags a spot from Dallas or Denver. So will anything change from last season? Yes, yes it will.

Last year the Spurs and Thunder held on well into the post season, mainly because several other young teams didn't have enough experience yet to match up with them for the long haul. I believe Golden State gets over that hump this season. They are no longer a surprise and will move one step further this year. I'm not ready to put them in the NBA Finals, but I'm damn close. I also love Houston's potential late in the season to knock off the former big boys. The East may be business as usual, but out West things will get interesting and expectations dashed. I WANT to pick the Clippers to take a step forward, but unfortunately they are stuck in the same spot.


TODD:
The Spurs and Thunder are still the favorites, but Portland has clearly established themselves as a team to be reckoned with. A record of 16-3 is no joke. If anyone is going to be that third team challenging for the Western Conference Finals, it's the Blazers. Golden State still seems flawed to me. They could obviously make a playoff run if their shooters get hot. It is pretty easy to imagine. However, I feel more confident in a post scorer like LaMarcus Aldridge and a point guard who gets to the hoop like Damian Lillard on Portland, than I do catching fire from behind the arc with the Warriors.

Houston and the Clips are interesting because they both seem like they are one player away from competing, and that one move could come if they trade with each other. Omer Asik does not fit on Houston. Everyone knew that the second they signed Dwight Howard. He is going to be moved. If Los Angeles can scrap together something Houston wants, or perhaps involve a third team, Asik is just the type of player the Clippers need to solidify their front line.

Let's revisit the standings around Christmas, when the soul of the NBA season kicks off. Hopefully one of these contenders has made a move by then. Give me some trades.

[If you missed Part one - Season of Déjà vu]

NBA Season of Déjà vu Season of Déjà vu - Part one

NBA Season of Déjà vu Season of Déjà vu - Part one

by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (12-2-13)



DAN:
The 2013-2014 NBA season is still very, very young and yet it's beginning to feel way too similar to last year. Injuries have once again derailed several teams and more than a few star players. I'm not interested in harping on the injuries, but what happens to Derrick Rose and the Bulls? Can the Nets turn the corner and get both Brooke Lopez and Deron Williams back at full strength to turn their season around?

I'm sad about Derrick Rose. I wanted a true contender for the Miami Heat come playoff time. Yes, yes there are the Indiana Pacers and Paul George is becoming a superstar. But he isn't one yet. Both the Bulls and Nets were serious competition, but I don't know if they can hang on for the long haul this season.

Things are looking up in the Western Conference, so give me your breakdown of the NBA season. Everyone knows its official start is on Christmas Day, so will the playoffs be as predictable as they were last year? Will every team we expect make it? Something has to change, doesn't it?


TODD:
You are correct in that it is much too soon to pay attention to the NBA standings. However, certain trends are obvious, whether because of injuries or the fact that your first-year head coach is spilling drinks on the sideline to get a free stoppage of play late in the game because he has no timeouts left.

The East is a wrap; call it right now. Miami and Indiana are both going to win over sixty games and no one else in the conference is going to approach fifty. It's a two-team race and Paul George is already a Star, with a capital S. He is making an All-NBA team this season. The Rose injury is the major cause of this supremacy race not being three-sided. Chicago has no ceiling with a healthy Derrick Rose. Now, their ceiling is fifty games and a trip to the second round of the playoffs. It's sad but true.

The rest of the East's supposed contenders have collapsed faster than stock in Kevin Garnett. Brooklyn and New York have been surprisingly terrible thus far, but lesser contenders like Milwaukee and Detroit have also failed to live up to expectations. Eight teams have to make the playoffs from this conference (some kind of silly rule mandates it). But that doesn't mean eight or seven (or even six!) teams will top a .500 record. If Miami does not face Indiana in the Eastern Conference Finals, something drastic went wrong for one of them.

As for the West, the exact opposite is transpiring, and I could not be more delighted about it. It looks like there will be no dominant team, but as many as twelve good teams. It is quite possible, by the end of the year, there will be as many as a dozen West teams with a better record than the eighth seed in the East.

San Antonio still looks amazing but so does Portland. It also seems like Houston, OKC and some others haven't even gotten going at full speed yet, even though they're still winning over 70% of their ballgames. A lot was expected out of New Orleans; they may be an interesting team to keep an eye on in the coming weeks, especially with the Anthony Davis injury. At 8-8 they are still very much in pursuit of a playoff spot, but they currently sit in a three way tie for 10th in the conference so they can't wait too long to turn things around.

So to finally answer your question, the playoffs will be exactly the same as always! The East is already decided. Heat v. Pacers, Eastern Conference Finals, mark it down; bet it; do whatever you gotta do. As for the West, it is as much of a craps shoot as it has been in recent years. I still see as many contenders to win the conference as we thought in August. You could even talk me into expanding that from the four we thought at the beginning of the season. Through a month of play, the West has actually become more competitive.


DAN:

That stunt cost Jason Kidd $50,000! One expensive use of a Downy paper towel. But I'm going on record that the Nets will be in the Eastern Conference Finals. Nets vs. Heat. I know the Pacers are on fire, but they need one more year of playoff experience before they can reach that 'next level.' Unfortunately we'll also have to hear about the Knicks all year, since you're spot on when saying no other team is formidable enough to matter in the East this season.

We disagree out West, but I'll toss a question quickly your way before tearing open that wound in Part two. Is there a surprise team in the East? Maybe the seventh or eighth seed who makes a surprise playoff run. It can't be the Nets, or even the Knicks. I'm pulling for the Celtics to take home that title this season.

[Part two - Its happening again]

NCAA College Basketball: Remaking the game - Part two

NCAA College Basketball: Remaking the game - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-15-13)

[Part one - League of Children]



TODD:
I don't think you quite understand the term "win-win." It is not a win for college basketball that this is happening. Sure, this one season they will have transcendent freshmen all over the nation. But what about next year? This draft class is a once-in-a-decade type deal, maybe even more rare than that. And is this one year in college actually helping the growth of these guys once they turn pro? I haven't seen the statistics but I wonder how much better the one-and-dones have been as compared to the guys who were coming straight from high school years ago. Obviously both groups have huge successes and huge failures but overall, both the NBA and NCAA make us think this is working. I'm not sold.

To your point that college basketball has become a proving ground for future pros, this is both correct and wrong. It is correct factual, in that it is actually happening. It is wrong morally though, in that it should not be happening.

Many have suggested an MLB-type declaration situation to solve this problem. A prospective pro coming out of high school can either enter his name in the draft right away or, if he decides to go to college, he must stay three years. I like this solution on the surface but it wouldn't have saved college basketball. Remember how eight of the top eleven draft picks are incoming college freshmen? Well, with that draft rule in place, all eight of those guys would have entered the 2013 NBA draft. So instead of having one year of them, the NCAA would have gotten none.

The only solution is to go all-out and throw our cards on the table. College basketball is an inferior product; everyone should agree on this, even the staunchest defenders. No one can argue the basketball being played on the court is better at the collegiate level than at the pros. That would be ludicrous. So why not adopt the 'high school or three years' draft rule with a caveat? Anyone entering the NBA draft out of high school plays their first year of basketball in the NBDL, the developmental league. Right now the asset that is the D-League is being wasted. A player dropped down to it is deemed a disaster or a failure. Remove the galling stigma attached to the NBDL by making it a young man's learning league. All the best 18 year olds in the world will be learning on the fly against guys just short of NBA talent. This would be better for them than a year of college. It would also be better for the NBA by avoiding the flood of high schoolers who aren't ready for the professional ranks just yet that occurred when the old draft rules were in place.

But what about college basketball you ask? Well, CBB gets dumbed down because there is no win-win option here. It loses the elite talent that would otherwise play one season. But what it gains is better: players coming who want to be there, want to learn and want to play for a school. It will grow consistency and the overall product on the floor will be better, even if the top level is slightly worse. College basketball is never going to be as exciting or athletic or as powerful as the NBA game; why try to force it?


DAN:
There is no way to force an NBA level product out of college basketball. There is not nearly enough talent to go around. If there were THAT many NBA level players, we'd have 100 teams in the NBA. So we can safely throw that hope, prayer, ignorant folly out the window. And you're right, improving the NBDL by having draft picks who skip college spend a year there will ultimately hurt the college game. It would also take a huge effort on the part of the NBA to make this work. Can you name me a single D-League player or team? Where are they, who is playing and when do they even play? I have no idea. Talk about a lot of money needed to sell an invisible product. I'm chucking that idea in the trash too. I'm also against forcing three years of college upon someone obviously ready to make millions of dollars. Trashing it!

I love your ingenuity, your willingness to change and find a new model that can potentially elevate both the NBA and college basketball. But I think you're avoiding the obvious. If a player wants to be in college, stay in college, and play for his school for two, three, four years, there is absolutely nothing stopping him. These elite freshman don't have to enter the draft after one year of college basketball. They are choosing to. They have a choice. And you know why all eight of them will most likely make the choice to leave, because all of us in the public and the media would consider them stupid to say in college. Take your money when its on the table. Don't risk injury. Blah, blah, blah. They would get lambasted for going back. Andrew Luck practically did, but because college football is held in such high regard and there is less money in the NFL draft now, it wasn't deemed such a bad decision.

I agree, having the freshman earn their stripes against NBA bench players is better for their careers than playing in college. But the glaringly obvious truth you've missed is that college basketball has changed. The whole reason you want to 'fix' things is because you can remember a time when it was great. When players played in college and rivalries were real and school spirit meant something. That era is dead. Money and a booming NBA killed it. Accept this fact and move on.... Are you good now? Tears all dry? Cool, now we can have a real debate.

NCAA basketball can be improved. The quality of play has been reasonably consistent over the last ten years. The best coaches have excellent teams and the superstar players stand out when they exist. They are the anomaly. We have at the very most, ten of them sprinkled over fifty or more schools every year. Remove them from this equation. I think the biggest thing holding back the college game is a lack of scoring. They've made strides to address this, but more should/can be done. The best parts of March Madness are when a game gets tight down the stretch, with under two minutes to play. Those games are often 60 to 55 or something ridiculous like that. You get your 70 and 80 point games, but do you see the problem? NBA games are 90 and 100 point affairs. Scoring 80 or less is a fire-able offense. I think some rule changes are in order! Good thing the NCAA already made some. I smell debate.

Let's first address the changes made heading into this college basketball season. You're the perfect man for this job. Did the NCAA do enough with the current changes? I realize we have yet to see the full results, but they only did tweaking as far as I'm concerned; was it enough? I want to increase scoring and remove the annoyance of two minutes at the end of a game taking nearly thirty minutes of my time. Cut that down to ten or fifteen and I'm good. And I'm not talking small changes like shortening the shot clock. That's a good start, but we need BIG game changers. What about adding a line at NBA three point range that would count for four points? Or removing time outs in the first half entirely, except for injury. Light a fire under college basketball.


TODD:
Your complete dismissal of my D-League idea is very pigheaded of you. My idea solves the one problem you touched on. No one knows anything about the NBDL or follows it in the least. This will change instantly if all the best NBA rookies play there. Every season, half a dozen or so D-League guys get called up to the majors. Now, people will follow the progress of their team's top rookie as well as hear about/watch some other potential rotation players that might be on the way as well. The only downside to this is logistically; the NBDL is not setup like minor league baseball. NBA teams do not all have D-League affiliations...yet.

Your defense of the current rule is also disappointing. You stood by it claiming these guys have a choice; they don't have to leave after one year. That statement is obviously true, but the top players do not have a choice when they want one: coming out of high school. At that point, their control in the matter is squished, as they are not allowed to enter the NBA draft even if they want to and are ready to. So why not actually give them the choice when they graduate from high school? Either enter the NBA or go to college with the intent on staying for a few years and learning. There's your choice.

But since you killed off old college basketball, I am glad you brought up the rule "changes." Changes is in quotes because the biggest alteration wasn't really a change to any rule, just an emphasis on enforcing an old rule correctly. No more hand checking or arm bars or two hands on an offensive player. No more slowing down offensive player movement and progress. No more wild running through the lane in basketball, the equivalent to running a gauntlet machine in football practice. This was obviously smart and necessary. It will increase scoring in two distinct ways: more free throws while guys get used to the whistles and better shots on offense since ball handlers can't get checked and held as much.

However, the NCAA did absolutely nothing to help that last two minutes business you mentioned. This is the real killer of all basketball games to be honest, pro included. And there is really no simple fix; anything would be drastic. You could get rid of some of the timeouts available, but that would change the entire coaching philosophy of final possession basketball. You could penalize intentional fouls more harshly, but this would almost completely remove the possibility of late-game comebacks. I think the only change that could even occur would just be a simple shortening of timeouts. Make them all 30 seconds, or even 20 seconds. Or allow a timeout to be used as an advance of the ball to mid-court, like in the NBA, but have there be no stoppage of time at all. These are just small nuanced switches that could be implemented. As sad as it sounds, I see no feasible move that could fix the problem without changing the sport.

I know people would be up in arms, but how would you feel about limiting (or eliminating) timeouts near the end of games? It would reduce a coach's usefulness almost to zero and force the players themselves to make calls and adjustments in the final seconds. It would make things more interesting I assume, but interesting can be both good and bad.


DAN:
I admire your D-League idea, but do we really follow players in baseball through the minors? Really? We keep track of the absolute top prospects when they are close to being called up, but we don't follow their performance, only the date in which they will make their major league debut. And how many minor league games are televised? If the idea is to showcase the rookies, we need to be able to watch them. And we need to care about the teams they play for. This is by no means impossible, just a larger mountain than I was prepared to climb.

On the flip side, I'm all for any rule change that can speed up the dreaded thirty minutes of thirty seconds of play at the end of games. If eliminating, or limiting, time outs accomplishes this, then hell yes! I honestly believe that for regular season college basketball to be interesting to the national public, something drastic must be done. March Madness has held its own, thanks to gambling, but its by no means safe. Change the damn sport. Without top level talent, year in and year out, its going to die anyways.

[If you missed Part one - League of Children]

NCAA College Basketball: League of Children - Part one

NCAA College Basketball: League of Children - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-11-13)



TODD:
The college basketball season tipped off just a few days ago. Early season games are being played between ranked teams and November records seem to mean more than ever before. In fact, tomorrow #1 Kentucky faces #2 Michigan State and #4 Duke plays #5 Kansas. Not bad for the first week of the season.

But that is not the story for the start of the year. The story is related to this:

1. Andrew Wiggins
2. Julius Randle
3. Dante Exum
4. Jabari Parker
5. Marcus Smart
6. Joel Embiid
7. Aaron Gordon
8. Andrew Harrison
9. James Young
10. Dario Saric
11. Wayne Selden

Those are the projected top eleven picks in the 2014 NBA Draft according to ESPN draft expert Chad Ford. Nevermind the fact that six of them play for either Kansas or Kentucky. That isn't the story either. (...Well, it kind of is.) Of those eleven men, the BEST eleven pro prospects mind you, only one had played a single second of college basketball prior to this week, and that is Marcus Smart (who is a returning sophomore). The other 10 of 11 prospects are either freshmen or from overseas.

Let's let that sink in for a second.

Need more time?

We good? Okay.

So eight of the best eleven prospects in the world (according to ESPN's Chad Ford) are freshmen who had never played any collegiate basketball before. Two come from overseas and one lone man, who plays his basketball at Oklahoma State, is the only elite prospect with any kind of college experience. This is fascinating; it is unbelievable; it is uncanny and, to be honest, rather embarrassing.

Now I realize many have talked about the famed 2014 draft as possibly the best ever. People were looking ahead and realized this potential a year ago. Truth is, this might be the best that some of these guys ever look. It's possible at least a couple flame out as freshmen and their NBA stock drops a bit, or they return to school (HAHA, yeah right!). But taking this early mock draft at face value, the bottom line is this: the landscape of college basketball is kind of a joke.

Take a look again at those games being played on Tuesday. Kentucky is #1 in the country. Arguably their five best players are all freshmen. Kansas is #5, led by a couple freshmen, and even the Duke Blue Devils have a freshman as their best player. (Hell is freezing over, sell all your stock, buy that fancy car you've always wanted.) So not only are nearly all the top NBA guys freshmen, but many of the top teams are littered with players who will be leaving after just one season. This happens every year, but not like THIS.

Putting the specific 2013-2014 freshmen class aside, doesn't something need to change here for the product that is college basketball? Fix it my brother. Fix the sport.


DAN:
I need more time! Thinking.... thinking.... okay I concede. What's happened to college basketball?

Let me get my annoyed ranting out of the way first, because this NCAA season is both stupid and amazing. Personally, I find college basketball to be down right exciting, especially during tournament time. The holiday tournaments are usually top notch and competition for the top 25 is fierce. Yet the best eleven players are freshmen, unknowns, children with ridiculous amounts of talent and little game tape. I'm calling them children, not because of age, but because of their basketball experience. You need time with a top notch coach (collegiate level or higher) and a competition level rivaling your own to gain the intangibles needed for the NBA. Sure, you can compete and score, but you're still a kid until you've put a couple seasons under your belt.

So we now enter this NCAA basketball season full well knowing that Kansas and Kentucky are odds on favorites to be in the Final Four, if not the title game. Why? Because they own six of the top eleven players and everybody knows you only need one transcendent guy to run the table. They are all freshmen. Seriously! How did college basketball get itself in this position? What has cornered the sport into this inescapable situation? The NBA did this. Its popularity growth, especially overseas, has made college basketball inconsequential. Everyone wants to watch the best players, but they want to see them in a Knicks or Suns uniform (teams picked randomly, most people would probably not pick either of those teams). They want to see the best play the best, in the NBA, not the best clobber other inferior players until they run home crying. This is not actually a problem. Let that sink in.

The best thing about NCAA basketball has always been March Madness. That hasn't changed and knowing your team's best player will only compete in the tournament one time makes every game that much more special. Ultimately the one and done, with freshmen dominating the college game year after year, is great for the sport of basketball overall. It hurts the college game slightly, while boosting the NBA in incredible ways. I'm actually excited to see these eleven players play, knowing they will represent the top eleven in the NBA draft next year.

The NBA is becoming more synonymous with college basketball and vice versa. The college game is the proving ground, more so than ever before, with only a single season to show your worth. College sports is about the team name and logo on the front of the jersey, not on the back. So fans of a university will be excited no matter what. What drives a sport is the casual fan, the guys who want to watch for the top tier talent. And college basketball is going to have a ton of that this season. I say win, win.

I'm going out a limb here and saying you disagree. Yell at me some more and I'll give you your 'fix.'

[Part two - Remaking the game] 

Sports Injuries: When stars fall - Part one

Sports Injuries: When stars fall - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (11-4-13)



TODD:
The Red Sox made an interesting improvement this season, going from last in their division to first and a World Series title. Remarkable? Not really. Last year's team shouldn't have been that bad; it really just came down to injuries. Injuries!

Jonah Keri did a great job of detailing this recently in a piece for Grantland. Here is his table that pushed the point home:

Player:                                                                             Games Played        WAR

Jacoby Ellsbury (2012)	74	1.4
Jacoby Ellsbury (2013)	134	5.8
David Ortiz (2012)	90	2.9
David Ortiz (2013)	137	3.8
Dustin Pedroia (2012)	141	4.4
Dustin Pedroia (2013)	160	5.4
John Lackey (2012)	0	0.0
John Lackey (2013)	29	3.2

The column on the left is Games Played and the column on the right is Wins Above Replacement (WAR). As you can see, from just four players, the Sox gained roughly 10 wins from one season to the next. This factors in none of the moves they made or improvements in other players, call-ups, whatever. A full 10 wins came from just these four guys staying healthy.

It is a rather remarkable discovery in my opinion. But what it really does is make the Red Sox story even less interesting. They were bad in 2012 because their best guys all got hurt. They were great in 2013 because their best guys all stayed healthy. As Yankee fans, we can relate.

This question goes way beyond baseball or the Red Sox. Are injuries ruining the fun of professional sports? It does not seem that concussions are lessening in the NFL; just last year, the NBA was demolished by major injuries to major stars. And we can see here what a small number of injuries in baseball can do to a contender. This has probably always been the case, but it seems much more stark these days.


DAN:
I'm deeply fascinated by the idea that a team could turn itself around so dramatically from one season to the next, simply by staying healthy. But in the grand fasion of debate, I disagree with your argument. The Red Sox may have gained ten wins this season, but they had a new manager, a new bullpen and most importantly, a killer new closer. It wasn't just the injuries. But ten wins is ten wins and as more QBs drop like flies each week in the NFL, this is a great topic to rip to shreds.

I'd be nice if life was as simple as you paint it. But I actually think there are far fewer sports injuries now than in the past. Medicine is better, training is better and players know how to care for themselves a lot better. What's caused us to be so damn aware of every little thing is three fold. First, if there are less injuries then we will know a lot more about the ones that do exist. Second, every little bump and bruise is taken way more seriously with the million dollar contracts these men hold. And third, fantasy sports makes us care a heck of a lot about the health of our star players. Now that I laid that out there, the real issue is how a single injury to your team's star can actually ruin a season.

No one really notices if your team's star stays healthy. Tom Brady is playing, dominating, and all is well in the world. But the one year he got knocked out, well damn did we take notice. The team still did well, but all the what ifs start creeping into play. This year in the NFL I can rattle off at least four or five teams that lost their QB and are worse for it. I can also name at least one, my beloved NY Jets, who are better off in the long run because they lost a QB. Sorry Mark, but better to move on now with a season of hope, then later with a season like Jacksonville is having. How are they actually that bad? I don't get it. Its like the players are afraid of crossing the end zone, much like a child who doesn't want to step on the cracks in the sidewalk.

So what are we really talking about here? Its not just injuries, but its knee and shoulder injuries. Nothing else seems to matter much. The NFL is so worried about protecting the head. Its definitely important, don't get me wrong. But this has to be evidence towards them actually caring about player safety, right? Because protecting the knees and shoulders goes much farther towards not having a star out for the season. In Sam Bradford's case, he just shouldn't have skipped out of bounds.... too soon?


TODD:
I agree with your three basic premises. We do know more about every injury because of coverage and the fantasy sports element for sure. And I think your second point was the most important. We hear about EVERYTHING; perhaps 60% of these same level injuries did not even make news 15 years ago. That is absolutely plausible and may even be a higher percentage.

The star injuries is what seems most alarming though. The 2012-2013 NBA season was a whirlwind of All-Stars going down for long stretches; Russell Westbrook, Derrick Rose, Kevin Love, Rajon Rondo, etc. And already in the NFL season, just halfway through mind you, here is an incomplete list of impactful guys out:

Julio Jones, Dennis Pitta, EJ Manuel, Jay Cutler, Lance Briggs, Leon Hall, Geno Atkins, Brian Hoyer, Champ Bailey, Randall Cobb, Clay Matthews, Brian Cushing, Reggie Wayne, Ahmad Bradshaw, Jerod Mayo, Vince Wilfork, Malcom Floyd, Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, Michael Crabtree, Sam Bradford, Carl Nicks.

Not only is that list just the most famous names, it doesn't even include guys who've missed over a month and are now back, like Jake Locker, or played some and have been periodically out, like Roddy White or Mike Vick. All those guys are already out or on IR officially. And this is week 9.

It can't just be a coincidence, can it? Or just simple mathematics of playing time? I realize the better players will usually play more minutes and thus have a higher likelihood of getting hurt, but to have such a rash of severe injuries to important players seems so fluky it must mean something. I just don't know what that 'something' is.

What is definitely not a coincidence is certain teams, like the Kansas City Chiefs, have remained rather healthy thus far, leading to their unexpected success. I believe if the numbers were plotted, the amount of surprise teams has more to do with injuries, or lack thereof, than people realize. If you want to have a jump on a surprise playoff pick for next baseball season, just scour through the data and see which team lost the most games from their top level talent. That would have pointed us towards a Boston comeback this season for sure.

[Part two - NFL Upside down & Changing Expectations]

PEDs & the Children - Part two

PEDs & the Children - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-20-13)

[Part one - Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh my]



TODD:
Professional sports leagues should allow players to take anything they want, but everyone will know about it. That's the notion Malcolm Gladwell presents and its a fascinating idea that I am all for. Obviously there are numerous pitfalls, as with anything. But now the court of public opinion can be set rather effortlessly. It will be up to us if we put more stock in an aided 60 home run season or a clean 42 home run season. And owners/general managers can make the same determination. The same thing is happening now but the public isn't aware of it.

What do you think of his idea? This may have severe consequences, such as every player deciding to take drugs since they are legalized or clean players who perform less than their peers getting pushed out of the league but it is an interesting take nonetheless.


DAN:
I'm against cheating, let me make that clear, but I'd hold the same opinion on PEDs if I competed at a higher level of sports. Like all jobs, you can come to your position and success honestly or not. You are ultimately accountable to yourself and have to live with the choices you make. I'm sure I've lost jobs over the last five years to people who "cheated" their way ahead of me. But it wasn't really cheating, they used whatever advantage they had to beat me out for a job. The same goes for those competing for college and professional sports jobs as athletes. You can pursue a less honest means to the job, taking steroids to boost your performance in the short term while sacrificing your long term health, or you can simply kick your workout into higher gear and be a little less strong in a more natural manor. The best player and person will win out. No hard feelings. Its up to you how bad you want something.

Most professional athletes want to compete at the highest level more than anything in the world. I don't agree with sacrificing the later years of my life to be stronger in my 20s, but I never wanted to be a professional athlete either. I can relate to the passion, however, but the idea that testing for everything but banning nothing will solve some problem is ignoring the bigger picture.

The main issue here is high school athletes taking muscle builders, growth hormones and PEDs during the years of their life when the body is still developing, the mind is impressionable and the child doesn't know any better. Adults can and will make their own decisions, but the kids will emulate their elders. Consequently, we have to punish the adults for actions otherwise okay. We as adults try to shield the youth from the reality of life for as long as possible. We don't want them to know that the CEO gets paid the most for doing the least work. We also don't want them to know how hard that CEO had to work, and who he had to step on, to earn his cushy job in the first place. And we DEFINITELY don't want them to know what the CEO did to step on people. That action in sports is the PED.

PEDs are banned for the sake of the kids. PED usage is punished for the sake of the kids. So testing for them, but then doing nothing is the worst possible solution. Its like telling a kid that we are going to put cameras in the class room so we know if you cheat on an exam. We are watching your eyes from every angle. But if we catch you cheating on the test, that's okay. I realize I brought in the word "cheating", but its still a good analogy. The only way to set a proper example and keep kids off drugs they should not be using until they turn 25 (I picked 25 because you should be finished growing by then) is to ban them for the adults. They are illegal outside of the doctor's office because its the doctor's job to understand the drug and administer it. Not your coach.


TODD:
This is you; this is what you sound like:

[Direct Link to Mrs. Lovejoy of The Simpsons fame]

Now I'm no monster. I understand the well-being of children is important. But remind me why it is the job of essentially random, young adults who can jump high to be the role models for kids. If you agree that professional athletes are going to do all they can to succeed at their job, depending on "how bad you want something" as you put it, why is it on them to also be examples for young people and do the right thing? Aren't those two mutually exclusive?

I actually agree with the school exam analogy to a point. That is a fair assessment...if the point of the testing was to find the kid who was best at taking tests and then have him or her be that school's test taker in order to show the optimum results on nationwide standards. But that isn't the point of school, at least not in good neighborhoods. Sports are a business run for entertainment and to find the humans who are best at it. Where does being a good role model fit into other lines of work? And why is Alex Rodriguez more important to a child's maturation than parents or guardians, teachers or coaches?

This isn't where I expected this conversation to go, which is not a bad thing, but I do want to steer it back towards the professional ranks if I may. Keeping the children out of it for the time being, since you made it clear that you can understand and are relatively okay with adults trying to get an edge, is there any player, active or retired, that you would be disappointed if you found out took PEDs? Framed another way, if you found out ____ took steroids, your opinion of him would change.

I already gather you would be fine with finding out Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson did. You already said, and I wholeheartedly agree, that taking something to help you recover from injury sounds rather logical. So then, to piggyback myself, would it change your opinion somehow negatively to find out someone like Derrick Rose 'didn't bother' to take PEDs? In essence, Rose took so long to recover because he 'didn't want it bad enough' to cheat.


DAN:
One final point on your killer jab at me via The Simpsons and the iconic Mrs. Lovejoy. Being a professional athlete is a special kind of job. There is only one other job that is akin to being a professional athlete and that's being an A-list Actor. I excluded politicians because we all know better than to look up them. Same goes for Musicians, who sing about such racy material that most people know better. All other jobs are not in the spotlight, more or less. Only Professional Athletes and A-list Actors and Actresses are both in the spotlight and presented to the world as something other than themselves. Kids and Adults alike look up them. They are role models. You don't get to choose this or not. If you choose to be on that level, then you are by default a role model. And there is one simple reason; you get paid in the multi millions of dollars. The money comes with responsibility. So wanting something so badly that you'd do anything is one thing, but getting it and dealing with the consequences of how it changes your life is another.

[Part three - Destroying legacies & the Steroids witch hunt]

[Part four - Statistics, steroids & What exactly is cheating]

[If you missed Part one - Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh my]

Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh My - Part one

Steroids, PEDs & Sports. Oh My - Part one
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-16-13)



TODD:
Has any phrase had a bigger decline in emotional response than "HGH?" Saying those three letters now, in the company of a common sports fan, will elicit disgust and dismay almost immediately. But didn't human growth hormone used to be pretty benign? In fact, wasn't it kind of innocuous? It used to be something doctors gave the elderly to help sooth their many ailments. If you weren't a doctor or old, I don't think you were even aware of what HGH was. And now...?

HGH implies conniving, cheating and lying. It makes us angry. I guess these responses are warranted. Professional athletes who take performance enhancers are blatantly trying to increase their talents beyond what is natural. If you consider human growth hormone not natural. You know, unlike tendon replacement and cortisone shots. Those are cool.

With this very leading preamble, my question to you is as follows: do you have a problem with professional athletes taking PEDs? If those enhancers have no known downside or physical side effects, does that change your answer? Or if the athlete is taking said substance to simply recover from an injury and not to increase his day-to-day performance, does it change your answer? And seriously, what phrase has taken a bigger dip in popularity than HGH? That has to top the list.


DAN:
First of all, I don't have a negative connotation associated with HGH. I guess I'm in the minority here, but HGH is something found naturally in the body and has been used for years by doctors to help cure the sick, elderly, you name it. It is exactly what it sounds like. Human Growth Hormone aids the body in a multitude of ways and I think its foolish to ignore its applications in medicine. Its not illegal for doctors to utilize HGH, but doctors get to utilize traditional steroids as well. I understand there's a difference here when it comes to sports.

My perspective on this issue is one of a former high school athlete, a former varsity football player. I played some rugby in college, but my football career ended with high school. Let me tell you, more than half my high school football team was taking some kind of supplement. Only a few people took actual steroids, but Creatine was super popular and everyone loved protein powder etc. I'm proud to say I took none of it and was by far the biggest and strongest player on the team. But taking stuff was a part of football in high school, so its only a larger part in college and an even bigger part in the pros. What does any of this have to do with PEDs? I'm not going to single out HGH here. Performance enhancing substances is a huge umbrella term, but for me it includes protein powder and that ilk as well. It all helps to beef up your body.

It comes down to this. Athletes at all levels of all sports are going to take things. Attempting to label some fair and others illegal is a fools errand and will never, ever result in anything less than confusion. I could care less if the guy next to me, or the player on the other team, was taking steroids. I never once felt inferior and took pride in being "clean." I have two main feelings on the whole PED issue.

When it comes to injury and recovery from injury, players should be able to get whatever treatment they can get. I don't care if Adrian Peterson took HGH to heel his knee. I'd rather him come back at 100% in six months than at 90% in twelve months. Let's not ignore modern medicine for the sake of old statistics and records.

As for players taking drugs to make them stronger, this is a tricky subject. I don't see it as cheating. They are not breaking the rules of the game itself, just the rules of the governing league. Cheating is doctoring your bat or baseball, or putting metal plating on your shoulder pads. Cheating is what every running back does when he tosses the football five yards up field after getting tackled. He's hoping the referee is unclear where he landed and gives him a more favorable spot. He's trying to steal a yard. Cheating is not making yourself stronger. You have the option of doing that regardless of whether you are taking drugs, protein, or raw eggs to help things out (Disclaimer - I don't think raw eggs do a damn thing). My assumption is that many players in the NFL and NBA are taking things you'd rather not hear about. We get to find out when it comes to MLB, which kind of stinks. If you allow players to take a regulated dosage of a drug, or PED, then at least it would be safe. Some players would get extra on the side, but it would level the playing field. And its still the individuals choice to make, to take it or not.


TODD:
It is actually quite refreshing to hear your take on this. However, your point of view may have changed had you played a sport at the division one, college level or professionally. What if some guy taking a PED was also trying to take your job? Would that change your opinion, or is it all in the game?

Letting players take a regulated dosage of things is interesting but would obviously be corrupted rather quickly. It does bring up an out-of-the-box point though, kind of piggy backing on your point of taking stuff to recover from injuries. Acclaimed author Malcolm Gladwell is a pretty big sports fan with some great theories. Everyone knows his famous 10,000 hours theory about practicing. He also has a radical take on steroids in sports. I'm paraphrasing but Gladwell thinks we should test for everything and ban nothing.

[Part two - PEDs & the Children]
[Part three - Destroying legacies & the Steroids witch hunt] 

[Part four - Statistics, steroids & What exactly is cheating]

Fan Focus: Storming the Court - Part two

Fan Focus: Storming the Court - Part two
by Dan Salem and Todd Salem (9-13-13)

[Part one - Fan Etiquette on the Road]



DAN:
Let's start with a few safe assumptions for court storming. First off, the game must be over. Secondly, your team must have won the game. I'm calling these assumptions, because if either of those two don't apply then the court storming party is being an ass.

Rules for storming the court:

1 - You are under the age of 30.

Storming the court should be strictly limited to the young crowd. Its not proper for a sixty year old man to rush the field. But a group of college kids at the game? Hell yes!

2 - Your team has just executed a significant victory.

Significant is defined as playoff clinching, a playoff victory, championship victory, or major regular season upset. Major is defined as an unranked team defeating a ranked opponent.

Did you enjoy my analytical approach? I was going to add in a rule about being drunk, but no need to exclude the crazy sober crowd. I think if you're ranked, in the top 25, then its not a major victory to defeat the top team. Its big, but not court storming big. Since this act is almost exclusive to college sports (its illegal in the pros or something), we need to make sure it counts. Otherwise the fans would storm after every victory in order to turn the game into a giant party.


TODD:
Obviously I have no problem with your assumptions or your first rule. Your team has to have won, no question; and this is indeed a young man's game. No elderly.

Number two is where things get sketchy. You tried to map out what entails a significant victory but you did not cover nearly enough. And you also ventured into the wrong territory. Playoff and championship wins are rarely, if ever, played on someone's home court anymore. So that's one problem. And if the favorite wins a playoff game, should their fans rush the playing field? I say no.

Really the only allowable rushing occurs at regular season, big wins. Now you defined this as an unranked team defeating a ranked team. But this is pretty baseless. Should a top 40 program really rush the field if they take down the 25th ranked team in the country? That would be ludicrous. And even if your program is down on its luck, should the fans really rush the court if they beat a highly-ranked but lowly university, like say if Auburn football beat TCU? Sure TCU is a much better team these days but whose program would you really rather be a part of? Auburn wins that war and its fans should rush nothing. They have a recent national championship for heaven's sake!

It is hard to cover every example and situation with a blanket rule because there will always be exceptions. But a court-storming has to have a few factors:

- The team has to be the underdog
- They have to be under appreciated in some way, either historically or in that specific matchup (i.e. NC State vs. UNC basketball)
- They cannot have won a title, national or conference, in the last 7 years
- They cannot be ranked in any poll
- The vanquished squad has to be either very highly ranked now or historically highly thought of

If one of these factors is missing, don't do it kids. It makes your school look petty and childish, like you don't have any sense of where your team sits nationally. Take pride in your university; don't embarrass yourselves.


DAN:
Wow, way to crap on the party. By your logic, Duke should never storm the court after any victory, ever. You're completely wrong on this! If Duke goes undefeated in the regular season, hell yes the fans should storm the court. If they win the ACC title or National Championship, hell yes they should storm the court. In those last two scenarios the fans would be out of town, so even better. Trash someone else's arena!

This brings up a fun counterpoint. Is it okay to storm the court after victory has been snatched from your fingertips? Storming in anger that is. I had winning as an assumption, but its worth asking. Or is it okay to storm after someone on the team sets a national record?

I've never had the pleasure of storming a court. But it seems to me like anything goes. I'm envisioning the tiny Asian girl getting pushed around, or having to climb on her friend's shoulders so as not to get swallowed by the mob.

Give me your best/worst experience as a fan on the road. Tie this topic up in a nice pretty bow.


TODD:
You are correct; Duke fans should never storm the court, ever. But Duke students know this is the deal. They are smart students; smart, jerky, asshole students.

And in what scenario would a cluster of Duke fans storm the court for a National Championship that's being played in, say, Atlanta? Not only would they not be allowed on the court (college sports do have security and police, but they let it go if the ENTIRE arena charges them, not for a group of 30 kids), but it would look foolish even if they did. Storming the court is only cool if the court is flooded with members of the crowd, not spattered with them.

And really? Storming the court after a loss?? No. Victory was your first assumption and its a good one. Storming in anger is not cool and does not happen and storming for a player accomplishment would never happen either. The game would probably be stopped for a moment as it happened if it was that big of a deal, but nothing afterwards seems warranted.

I have stormed the playing surface before, both at basketball and football. It is a joyous time...for the first six or seven minutes. After those few minutes pass, it seems awkward and you are wondering when everyone is going to leave. So it's definitely an overrated action, but that only backs up why it should be saved for proper occasions. If you attend Duke, this occasion will not come up, and really, you chose Duke out of any school in the country?? How douchey of you.

As for being a fan on the road, I have never had the opportunity that I can recall. I am sure I've seen the Yankees play in some stadium other than their own, but nothing happened. It was so uneventful I cannot even remember it happening. That's baseball for you.

I have seen my alma mater football and basketball squads in neutral sites though, for whatever that's worth. What happens at neutral site games is that local sports fans end up snatching cheap tickets prior to the event and just are obnoxious to anyone rooting for either team actually playing. This happened when I saw Virginia Tech play in the Orange Bowl a few years back. The locals from Miami just got on us whenever something went against the Hokies. They didn't even care who won. It was bizarre.

[If you missed Part one - Fan Etiquette on the Road]