Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
King,
Although I agree with your general criticism of coaches who bench players rotely when they pick up their second or fourth fouls in the first or second halves, respectively, I think you misapply it to Ben Howland's decision to bench Jordan Farmar with about four minutes left in Saturday's game. At the time that Farmar picked up his fourth, he was (a) not playing well, having recently committed a couple sloppy turnovers, (b) visibly unhinged over what he perceived to be poor officiating, especially on his phantom-charge third foul, and (c) hurt, having bruised both of his wrists on the drive to the basket that resulted in the charge. Fourth foul or not, at the time that Howland benched Farmer, Darren Collison was simply the steadier, better option to run the point.
Must admit I'm a fan of Billy Packer's work even though his tirade against the mid-majors last week was completely off. His use of math and statistics was so poor my head was beginning to hurt.
Still, after hearing him do a game I consistently feel like I understand basketball a little bit better. I can't say that about too many other announcers. That's really a color analysts job, and to me he is the best in the business at that aspect.
I understand what your point is now, and it is (pretty) clear in the original article. And a good point too.
I agree with King about the attention to dunking in women's basketball. For a long time, I've been mystified at how women's ball is marketed by comparing it to men's ball (and the subsequent implication of misogyny toward those who don't care for the women's game) rather than simply marketing it for what it is: a different type of basketball played by people who could in no way compete against another group of people. Men's college sports such as football and basketball do just fine marketing the product on its own terms without apologizing for the less than professional skills of the athletes, often overtly celebrating those less than professional skills (e.g., numerous Heisman and Naismith winners with limited prospects for professional success).
Furthermore, as King notes, a focus on a woman's dunking, as we saw over and over again on Sportscenter this morning, only highlights the unathletic nature of women's basketball players as compared to men. I remain unimpressed by anyone who can barely slide a smaller ball over the rim, especially if that person is 6'3" with long arms. King clearly likes women's basketball more than I, who have chosen a different athletic threshold for what I appreciate as a spectator sport, and reminding me that I can walk down to the gym and see better basketball players any afternoon of the week isn't a way to win me over.
As a poster above notes, hating Billy Packer may be played out a bit, but I still can't stand the guy. He's a nostalgic blowhard and a hypercritical jerk towards both coaches and players. And, though King notes that he is an ACC homer, listening to him all season in ACC country can grate on a fan, too. Since his obvious allegiance to the ACC becomes moot during regular season games in the conference, the one thing that he does like disappears, leaving only his distaste for everything else that happens. Overly negative hyperbole here? Sure. I've been listening to Billy Packer too much. Give me Len Elmore or Jay Bilas any day, even if Bilas is a dookie.
I disagree with King about CBS's broadcasting of the games. Though CBS is certainly not FOX-esque in its productions, I've still missed way too much on court action, including stuff after a play, because of close-ups, premeditated segments, graphics, or replays, that odd long shot form one corner, and the truly horrible under-the-goal shot on fast breaks, which end in something besides a dunk so often that I'm surprised that shot is still used, and, even when play finishes with a dunk, that shot makes the action seem less impressive than the normal midcourt angle.
Kudos on the rule change proposal on timeouts!
I agree it's absurd to allow this diving, squirming nonsense to result in a break for the divee/squirmee...
Let's hope someone pays attention and we get some relief next year.
Four points:
1) Yes, it was nice for Packer and Nantz to aplogize for their previous remarks about the MVAC. Unfortunately, a lot of this apology time occurred while Arizona and Villanova were within 2 points and 2 offensive sets occurred with no commentary.
2) CBS is a little more sedate than FOX, I agree. But how many times do they show you previously unknown coaches' wives in the final minutes of a close game? Too many.
3) Enberg still is the class of the play-by-play commentators.
4) It's a little thing, but why does CBS repeatedly refer to "NOVA"? Even on their bracket graphics? Do they think "VILL" would get us confused, thinking they were referring to the Villa Park High School? Or the Village People?
I know it's not feasible for a major reason-- men and women play in the same arena's at pretty much every level-- but I've always thought you lower the rims to 9 feet for the women's game. They use a smaller ball, supposedly because it makes ballhandling and shooting easier. But what are the strengths of the women's game already? Ballhandling and shooting. I highly doubt that, given the time to acclimate to the regular (mens) sized ball, women wouldn't be able to shoot and handle just as well. As a matter of fact a good friend of mine was a manager at Uconn, and one day we watched Diana Taurasi shooting around with a men's ball. She did fine, including hitting several from NBA 3-point range.
But if you could lower the rim, everything would improve. It would counter the two biggest disadvantages women have compared to men, height and leaping ability. You'd make the inside game easier, leading to more emphasis on pounding it inside (and better action if you ask me.) There would be more of an advantage to getting it down low.
And, yes, you'd have more dunking. I understand the arguments for not trying to make the women's game into the men's game. But the fact is that dunking would greatly increase the interest of the average fan. At 9 feet, many WNBA and top college players would be able to dunk, and some would be able to dunk in traffic. A fastbreak would be that much more exciting, and the first time a player crams on a player from a rival team in the tournament-- that would really get people interested.
I know it's not likely to ever happen, and it would take time for current players to adjust their shooting. And you would need many many more adjstable rims out there. But I've been thinking about it for years and I bet it would be great for the women's game.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
