The North has risen again
When the Big 12 basketball season started, the South Division seemed supreme. Only Kansas seemed worthy of inclusion among the conference elite.
But now the league is Oklahoma and the North Division. Missouri and Kansas State have zoomed to the upper third of the league. In fact, of the top five teams in the Big 12 standings, four are in the North Division.
Missouri won at Texas and OSU. Kansas State won at Texas and Texas A&M. OSU is 3-5 in the Big 12; Baylor and A&M are 3-6.
Shaky non-conference performances could leave Nebraska and K-State in danger of missing the NCAA Tournament, so right now, only three teams seem sure bets to make March Madness: OU (23-1), Kansas (18-4) and Missouri (20-4). Texas (15-7) still has a great non-conference resume’, so don’t count out the Longhorns.
But the tide clearly has turned. OU is 4-0 vs. the North Division, but every other South team has a losing record in interdivisional games. Against the North, OSU, Baylor and Texas Tech are 1-2. Texas is 1-3. Texas A&M is 0-2. The North leads the South 11-8 so far, and the North hosts nine of the remaining 17 interdivisional games.
Cowgirls putting post-season in peril
Oklahoma State’s women’s basketball team seemed to be riding high after a Sweet 16 appearance last season and star point guard Andrea Riley returning.
But this season has not gone well, and the Cowgirls are putting their 2009 post-season in peril.
OSU lost 91-74 at home to Texas on Thursday night, dropping the Cowgirls to 3-4 in the Big 12 and 14-6 overall.
OSU is not in danger of missing the NCAA Tournament. The Cowgirls figure to be included in the field of 64, no matter what.
But State’s performance so far — and the rugged schedule — ahead means a likely mid-level seed in the NCAAs. And almost certain first-round defeat, since the Cowgirls will play without Riley.
Riley must serve a one-game NCAA Tournament suspension for fighting. She took a swing at LSU’s Erica White, striking her in the back of the head during the Sweet 16 game last March.
OSU’s plan was to have a successful season, get a high national seed (3-4 range) and weather the first round without Riley.
Now, no way do the Cowgirls get a seed that high. Here are OSU’s next four games: host OU, host Baylor, at Kansas State, at Texas. The Cowgirls already have lost at home to Texas A&M and Texas, so they will be decided underdogs against OU and Baylor.
It’s quite possible, maybe even likely, that the Cowgirls have just begun a five-game losing streak. And later come back-to-back road games at OU and A&M.
OSU is staring at a 6-10 conference finish, 7-9 if it can find an upset, but even an 8-8 finish isn’t likely to put the Cowgirls into the NCAA seed they need.
A seed in the 7-8-9 range will mean a game against a virtual equal. But Riley won’t play, and the Cowgirls are doomed without her.
It’s hard to envision a team that ever has relied on one player so much. Riley has taken 30.3 percent of OSU’s shots and scored 31.7 percent of OSU’s points. She has the ball in her hands probably 75 percent of OSU’s time of possession. The Cowgirls would have to play a far inferior team not to get waxed without Riley.
The good news is, the tough schedule gives OSU an opportunity to improve that seed and give itself a fighting chance in the NCAA. But nothing the Cowgirls have done so far this season offers hope that OSU can withstand the gauntlet it’s about to face.
Emails in on Courtney’s streak ending
The new emails are in, with the comments leading with Courtney Paris.
James wrote, “I’m a six-year season ticket holder for OU women’s basketball. I first noticed the Courtney Paris streak becoming a problem last year. OU would be ahead of the other team by 15 or so with five minutes to go. Courtney would get her double-double and a huge contingent of fans would suddenly rise and rush to the exits. It was apparent that the streak was taking on a life of its own.”
Here’s what’s strange. Lack of rebounds threatened the streak last season. Lack of points threatened, and eventually ended, the streak this season.
Bruce wrote, “Am I the only one that thought Bobby Knight’s diatribe about Sherri Coale’s decision to leave Courtney Paris in the game ‘just for the sake of preserving a record’ was inappropriate? Let’s see. With OU up by 10ish, Sherri Coale should have pulled Paris (and become partially responsible for ending Paris’ chance to extend her record) and her starters all for the sake of sportsmanship (saving Pat Summit’s face) by making OU’s very first victory of the Lady Vols’ less impressive? It’s not like OU was up 20. His comment was met with certain silence from his mates in the booth, more so when she picked up her final personal foul seconds later.”
Oh, probably not, but I don’t think that’s what Knight said. He said the obvious attempt to extend the streak took away from a great victory, and I agreed with him.
Julia wrote, “You are right on about Courtney’s streak taking on a bigger life than the team, winning games and the season itself. Sitting in the crowd during a couple of recent games, particularly Texas A&M, it was all I could do to keep from dunking a box of popcorn on some fans. Despite the high probability of still losing the game they were screaming for the Sooners to ‘get the ball to Courtney.’ One man was yelling at Coach Coale to tell her players to feed it to Courtney. Because our seats are at the end of the court we could see clearly that thanks to A&M’s smothering defense, feeding Courtney was dangerous. When she did get her 10th point, the place erupted as if we’d just won the national championship. That made me uneasy. Basketball is a team sport and Courtney Paris, more than anyone, knows that and I appreciate her candor Monday night is saying that having the streak broken was a relief. Now we can do what we’re really out to do and that’s make it to the Final Four. I loved that streak as much as anyone but never over a win.”
I meant what I wrote. Best thing that could happen to OU was Paris ending that streak.
Jason wrote that “I don’t have a problem with what Knight said about the streak, but one of his other comments was puzzling and made him appear ignorant of women’s basketball. He stated that it looked like Ashley Paris was the better ballplayer. HUH? He did not make this comment within the context of this one game, which would have been true. Ashley played better than Courtney. But there are 112 reasons – IN A ROW – why Courtney is better than Ashley. And judging by Ashley’s comments about her sister after the game, she would have no problem agreeing with that statement. It just seemed like a dumb thing for him to say.”
Well, at the risk of sounding dumb, too, I might agree with him. Ashley can do more things this year.
OK, on to football. Don wrote, “Came across an interesting article. Out of 50 top recruits in 2004 from Texas, only 19 ever played major college football. It is not an exact science for sure. I would rather have an athlete that plays on a team that goes 4-4 and gains 1,000 yards with character and grades than an athlete that rushes for 2,000 yards on a 10-0 team that is marginal grade wise but talent laden. In evaluating players with talented squads like I have described, it is hard to tell how good they really are. Is it him or the surrounding cast of players? It is known already if a kid for a 4-4 team rushes for over 1,000 yards, he is special. To me, that type of kid is a can’t-miss prospect. Colleges today are enamored with stats and size. The gems are the kids that have at least 4.4 speed and play on the lesser-talented teams and produce regardless. OU is getting good players every year but with questionable character and their grad rate in the Big 12 is not good. They were last in 2007.
OU has some questionable character? I hadn’t thought about that. Wonder if it’s true.
Dennis wrote about my Super Bowl column. “You made one error. You said there are no terminal losers anymore. Wrong! You forgot about the Detroit Lions. The owner doesn’t care about winning, just owning an NFL team. The general manager, until recently, Matt Millen was the worst GM in the NFL. He drafted three wide receivers three years in a row with high first round picks and none turned out to be anything. He made a slew of other errors and was still GM for about 10 years! Just a poor organization. They have to prove they are not terminal losers!”
The Lions stink, no doubt about it, but they’ve had their moments since the Truman administration. Some NFL titles in the 1950s. An NFC title game appearance in 1991. The Cardinals hadn’t done squat since the ’40s.
Keesee, a Dallas reader who keeps us up to date on events south of the Red, wrote that Tech and Baylor have started discussions about playing in Dallas and that Jerry Jones most likely will not gain a sponsor for naming rights to his new stadium. “Economy has created the situation. Wait till the Cotton Bowl ticketholders get their renewal applications. Prices will go up significantly. And since Jerry’s World holds 60K plus, as opposed to the 80K plus at the Cotton Bowl, there are going to be some upset people on both pricing and seating. I know you have openly questioned the logic of the Sooners playing two conference games in Dallas during the season. I agree. But I do believe it is the OSU Cowboys’ best interest to come to Fair Park. The growth area of Oklahoma in the next decade is going to be in the southern counties. Failure to schedule a game at Fair Park will give this new emerging market exclusively to the Sooners. I just don’t believe that the Cowboys can get to (or remain) at the next level playing all of their games in Stillwater.”
I don’t see OSU getting a bunch of new fans from Bryan County because it plays in the Cotton Bowl. Winning big will bring new fans.
Slim, out of the blue, asked, “Here’s a speculative question for you. Who’s the best white U.S. basketball player currently playing? Can’t think of one? Remember Steve Nash is Canadian. Maybe Kirk Hinrich or Luke Walton. Where are the new Larry Birds or Kevin McHales?”
I don’t know. Mike Miller?
Thunder following the Portland model
When Clay Bennett and Co. purchased the Seattle SuperSonics, he said he wanted to pursue the San Antonio model in terms of ownership. And when Bennett hired Spurs whiz-kid Sam Presti to be general manager, Presti also embraced the San Antonio model as a way to run an NBA franchise.
But truth is, the Thunder is following the Portland model.
The Trail Blazers play in the Ford Center tonight and bring a salty team to town: 30-18 record and the No. 4 slot in the Western Conference standings.
Not too long ago, Portland was in the same rebuilding phase as the Thunder is today. In fact, the Blazers are two years ahead of OKC on almost every step of the building process. The similarities are remarkable.
* Both franchises were among the most consistent in the NBA. They weren’t in the elite; both won a championship in the late ’70s and haven’t won again. But Portland had no losing record from 1989 to 2006; the Sonics had no losing record from 1987 to 2003. Every other franchise during those 20 years had at least one losing season.
* In 2003, Portland finished 50-32 and had a bevy of talent, led by Rasheed Wallace, Zach Randolph and Bonzi Wells. In 2005, Seattle finished 52-30 and had ballplayers like Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis and Vladimir Radmonovic.
* The good times didn’t last. Portland fell to 41-41 in 2003-04 amid bad attitudes and bad behavior. The city soured on the franchise it had adored. The Sonics fell to 35-47 in 2005-06 amid arena hassles and threats of moving. The city soured on the franchise it had adored.
* The franchises bottomed out. Portland dropped to 27-55, 21-61 and 32-50 the next three seasons as it purged its roster. The Sonics/Thunder dropped to 31-51, 20-62 and, now, 11-38, as it purged its roster.
* The teams are remade. Portland has only one player left from its 41-41 team 2003-04, Travis Outlaw. It has an enviable young talent base of Brandon Roy, LaMarcus Aldridge, Rudy Fernandez and Greg Oden. The Thunder has only three players remaining from its 52-30 team of 2004-05 (Nick Collison, Damien Wilkins and Robert Swift, and only Collison is likely to be with the Thunder past this season). The Boomers, too, have an enviable young talent base of Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook and Jeff Green.
* The difference, of course, is that Portland has taken that huge step of returning to respectability (41-41 last season) and contention (this season).
The Thunder seems on track to do so. Respectability next season, playoff contention the year after.
But you’ve got to do it. The Trail Blazers talked about it and then did it.
However, all signs point to Oklahoma City following Portland’s lead. It’s a good model to mimic. No wonder they’re called the Trail Blazers.
Basketball television production lacking
I watched both the Thunder-Nuggets and OU-Texas A&M on Wednesday night, continuing a season-long trend. I’ve probably watched more basketball this season than ever before.
I think there is a shortage of quality production people in sports people.
The Thunder generally produces a quality broadcast, except its producer — the guy pushing the buttons for which camera is on the tube — consistently forgets what his job is. On many a Thunder broadcast, you miss a play, because a camera is focused on a closeup of a player trotting back downcourt or is focused on the crowd.
That’s unforgivable. Don’t switch away from the action unless you’re sure the action is routine. Walking the ball upcourt or general waiting for a substitution or something.
Otherwise, the Thunder’s only other sin is unorthodox angles, generally from court level, which are interesting for a couple of seconds but of no benefit for sustained action. Show the quirky angle, then get back to the ballgame.
The OU-A&M broadcast was plagued by scoreboard problems. The score implanted on the screen consistently was wrong and outdated. I don’t know if it was human error or technological problems, but you couldn’t trust the score you saw. That’s not a problem with the Thunder broadcasts, which are as good as I’ve ever seen at updating the score. The new score is registered virtually every time the ball drops through the net.
The OU-A&M game, broadcast by the Big 12 network, also was curiously void of other Big 12 scores. No updates from Stillwater or Austin or Boulder. Very strange in this day and age.
Here’s an example of how bad graphics can put announcers in a bad light. A&M’s Bryan Davis went to the bench with his fourth foul late in the game, but the graphic said Davis had fouled out. Announcers Bob Carpenter and Reid Gettys had been talking about A&M’s foul trouble but had moved on to another subject when the graphic came out and didn’t correct the mistake. Gettys later mentioned that A&M needed to get Davis back in, and when he sat for quite a while longer, I figured Gettys was confused. Not so. Davis did return. But the graphic made him look bad.
Men’s, women’s rankings mirror
Check out the AP men’s basketball poll. Top five: 1. UConn; 2. Oklahoma; 3. North Carolina; 4. Duke; 5. Louisville.
OK. Now check out the AP women’s basketball poll. Top five: 1. UConn; 2. Oklahoma; 3. California; 4. Duke; 5. Louisville.
You never see polls mirror like that, except when it’s two polls from the same sport. The AP and coaches polls in football, for instance. Or men’s basketball. Or women’s basketball.
This is a different sport. Different teams, different coaches, completely independent of each other.
And four of the top five slots are exactly the same for men and women. What in the names of Geno Auriemma and Jim Calhoun is going on?
At the very least, I think we can state that good basketball on one side of the gender begets good basketball on the other. Facilities, fans, tradition, whatever.
Every story is different. UConn men have been a power for about 20 years, the women a little less, and both programs have taken advantage of being adored by a tiny but populous state.
Oklahoma has a long history of solid men’s basketball and a checkered past in women’s hoops, but Sherri Coale has ignited success and interest.
Duke’s women have built upon the great tradition of the Duke men. And Louisville’s women are new to the national stage.
In all cases, men’s basketball was the forerunner. But clearly, the success of the men has instigated success in the women. The days of the solitary women’s power are fading — Louisiana Tech, Wayland Baptist, Old Dominion, Immaculata. Those once were the power names in women’s hoops. No more.
Truth is, all of collegiate sports is consolidating power, despite parity outbreaks. If you’re good in football, which is where the money is, it tends to lead to success elsewhere.
Take our four mirrored schools. UConn in the last decade has started playing big-time college football, with some success, and it hasn’t hurt the Husky basketball teams a bit, though it has to take away limited resources from Calhoun and Auriemma. OU football, I assume you know about.
Louisville has turned into a football school in the last decade. Only North Carolina has not had much gridiron success among the quartet, and that appears to be changing under Butch Davis.
Good news for Sooners: Courtney’s streak ends
Courtney Paris’ remarkable 112-game streak of double-doubles — double digit totals in both points and rebounds — ended on an historic Monday night in at the Ford Center.
And that’s a good thing for OU women’s basketball.
On the night the Sooners bounced Tennessee 80-70 (wasn’t that close), Paris’ came a point shy of extended her streak. It wasn’t for lack of trying.
In the final three minutes, the Sooners desperately tried to get Paris points. On four straight possessions, with a commanding lead, OU went to Courtney. She made one basket, bringing her total to nine, and also committed a turnover and missed two shots.
In the final minute, Tennessee fouled Nyeshia Stevenson before OU could set up an offense, then Courtney fouled out on the other end with 41 seconds to go, receiving a rousing and deserved ovation.
But the end of the streak could be the best thing that ever happened to OU and Courtney. The streak had taken on a life of its own, and nowhere was that more evident than the final few minutes of the OU-Tennessee game.
The Sooners were about to record one of the most monumental wins in school history, their victory over the giants of the sport, and yet all focus was on an individual pursuit. It all seemed a little awkward, and don’t throw stones at ESPN’s Bobby Knight for saying so. Knight was right.
Anytime individual records rise to this level, it’s not good for team chemistry. I’m not saying any Sooner was jealous about Courtney’s ample accomplishments. But when individual records trump team goals, it’s not good.
Coaches preach team, team, team. But that sermon can be compromised if an individual situation arises, even if all intentions are honorable.
And truth is, the streak had taken on a life of its own. Several times this year, OU clearly was trying to extend the streak.
Against Creighton, Paris reached double-digit points with 1:54 left, leading 64-44.
Against Missouri, Paris reached 10 points with 6:55 left and OU up 69-38.
Against Texas A&M, Paris extended the streak with a basket with 58 seconds left in a 65-54 game.
Against Saint Louis, Paris scored two baskets in the final 4:04 to reach 11 points, the first with the score 81-55.
The streak raised some eyebrows a year ago, when OU played in a tournament in Mexico and asked for a box-score change after reviewing the tape, seeking more rebounds for Paris to extend the streak. The adjustment was legit, but still, that was a sign that the streak was important in Soonerville. Maybe too important.
Anytime individual accomplishments become so central to an organization, it can throw a team off track. These Sooners are by no means off track, but OU will be much better off down the stretch focusing entirely on team goals.
Courtney, too, might be better freed from the pressure of extending the streak. She’s her usual productive self; though her numbers are down, that’s largely the result of more weapons among her teammates.
This Oklahoma season has a chance to ultra successful. But you don’t reach the Final Four and you don’t beat Connecticut without all-out commitment to the team. And OU’s fascination with the streak — even if it’s not necessariy Courtney who was fascinated with it — could have been a hurdle.
That hurdle is gone now. The streak is recorded for history and will be hard-pressed to ever be matched. But the streak’s demise could be a good for the Sooners.
Super Bowl 43: A Tribute to Replay
The star of Super Bowl 43 was not James Harrison or Santonio Holmes or Big Ben or Kurt Warner or Larry Fitzgerald.
Instant replay stole this show. Two of Pittsburgh’s three touchdowns were upheld upon review, and another Steeler TD was wiped out by technology.
It’s amazing how much we’ve come to depend on instant replay, even though it isn’t always conclusive. This game, for instance.
The standard, I think, has slipped from conclusive to “pretty sure.”
Remember the Seinfeld episode where Kramer has been arrested for serial killing? Jerry and George go to the police station to visit and tell the cops, “He didn’t do it. We’re pretty sure.”
Same with replay. The wiped-out Steeler touchdown, in which at first a scrambling Ben Roethlisberger was given a touchdown? The evidence seemed to show Big Ben didn’t get in, but there were no replays that were absolute.
James Harrison’s 100-yard interception return for a touchdown, which has to be the greatest play to ever a first half in any ballgame anywhere? The refs called it a TD, and replays seemed to go either way, so review let it stand.
Even Holmes’ epic game-winning catch with 35 seconds left was not totally in the clear. It looks like both his feet were down. I think they were. But you can’t really tell, which is why the touchdown should have stood and did.
The problem with replay review is that it becomes a crutch. We want every play reviewed. Officials tend to relax and not make a good, strong affirmative call, waiting instead for the camera to decide things.
That’s why I’ve always been against replay review. It costs too much. But there’s no going back now. Not after Super Bowl 43.
We’re due a Super Bowl dud
I’m less excited about this Super Bowl than any I can remember. I don’t really know why.
Nothing against the Cardinals. I love Kurt Warner. I think Larry Fitzgerald might be the best offensive player in the NFL. Their helmets are classic.
But I just don’t see Arizona staying with Pittsburgh. Until the playoffs, the Cardinals were a mediocre team; 9-7 in the NFC West is 8-8 or 7-9 in most any other division.
Yes, Arizona got hot, and good for it. But is the NFL a get-hot league? I don’t see it. And don’t give me the Giants. The 2007 Giants were an excellent team that played in a rough division, withstood some injuries and finished 10-6. And in the playoffs, New York didn’t suddenly turn on the fire. For instance, the Giants’ win at Dallas and in the Super Bowl against New England were the same kind of games the Giants had played all season, they just gutted them out and won.
I don’t think the ’08 Cardinals are in the same class as the ’07 Giants, but I think the ’08 Steelers are something special. They are rock solid; a defense for the ages and a quarterback in Ben Roethlisberger who has proven to be a winner.
The Super Bowl in recent years has turned into a decent sporting event. Patriots-Rams, Patriots-Panthers, Giants-Patriots. Some excellent games. But not too long ago, the Super Bowl was a Super Dud. A bad, one-sided game in which we annually expected a rout.
I expect another one today. Steelers 28-6.
