The Elbow, A sigh of relief, the CAA bubble
1. http://youtube.com/watch?v=2cqrNQCe6l8
That's the link to Tyler Hansbrough getting his nose broken by Gerald Henderson at the end of Carolina's 86-72 win over Duke on Sunday. Did he do it on purpose? Beats me. Watch the link, if you haven't already, and decide for yourself. But I have a lot of thoughts on the play, and I'm going to present them for you here, bulleted-list style.
-They obviously didn't have the camera on Henderson the whole time, but at no point did we see the Duke freshman show remorse at such a gruesome foul, nor did he act the least bit surprised or upset when he was ejected. Does that prove he did it on purpose? Hardly. But it's something to think about.
-On the other hand, I'm going to give Henderson the benefit of the doubt and say that he's not dumb enough to intentionally cheap shot Hansbrough like that. If I felt the urge to hit one of the Heels with a 'bow across the bridge of the nose, there's no way I -- and presumably anyone else with self-preservation on the brain -- would pick the man they call "Psycho T."
-The officials absolutely did the right thing by ejecting Henderson. Even if the foul wasn't intentional, it was extremely reckless, and it resulted in a somewhat serious injury. That kind of irresponsible behavior mustn't go unpunished.
-A lot of people are wondering today what Hansbrough was still doing on the court with the game decided, and a lot of Carolina people are pointing out that Duke still had its starters in. Tar Heel fans are correct; in the college game, it's standard for the leading team to leave its first string on the floor until the oppositon waves the white flag by emptying it's bench. That said ,if you are going to leave these guys in, you have to deal with the consequences. There are a lot of ways Hansbrough could have hurt himself in those final few seconds, and many of them have nothing to do with dirty or reckless play from Duke.
To their credit, however, people from the Carolina program aren't doing much squawking about it.
-While I understand having Hansbrough in the game, there's little need for him to crash the glass after missing a free throw, and even less need for him to go back up for a layup after securing the rebound. The smart play is to kick it back to a guard and run the clock.
-I was disappointed -- and surprised -- at Coach K's comments after the game suggesting that Hansbrough shouldn't have been in the game. He backtracked later and admitted that he shouldn't have had his studs in either, but it came off as petty.
-Henderson's absence in Thursday's ACC quarterfinal vs. North Carolina State will be noticeable. He was arguably Duke's best offensive player on Sunday and appeared to be coming into his own. For a team that can't seem to get its offense running on all cylinders, losing anyone who can fill it up is a big blow.
-I very much doubt that the broken nose will affect Hansbrough's performance, even if he has to wear a mask. He's not a finesse player and he doesn't take a lot of jumpers, so any vision impairment he might suffer will have minimal effects.
2. Virginia Commonwealth and Gonzaga made the committee's job easier by winning their respective conference tournaments Monday night. Had George Mason swiped the Colonial Athletic Association's automatic bid, VCU would have been added to the at-large pool, and the decision for which CAA team to take (see below) would have had a complex new element.
As for the Zags, they have one of the most interesting tournament resumes in history: A mid-major program with four wins over BCS conference teams (North Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Stanford); a slew of losses against major conference schools (Washington State, Georgia, Duke, Virginia, and Memphis); two losses against other mid-majors ranked in the top 25 (Butler and Nevada); but had three losses in a weakish conference. Oh, and their best player has been suspended for the last month due to his arrest on drug possession charges.
My hunch is that the committee would have put its money where its mouth has always been, and rewarded the Bulldogs for scheduling the way they did. But it was far from a foregone conclusion, and you better believe the committee is happy they don't have to make that decision.
3. VCU's win makes the Committee's job easier, but the bubble is still crowded with two CAA teams, Old Dominion and Drexel. I defy you to pick one over the other.
The argument for Old Dominion: Their RPI (39) is stronger than Drexel's (46); they went 15-3 in conference; they split with VCU; they became the first road team in 24 years to win at Georgetown's McDonough Arena (the Hoyas play the majority of their home games at the Verizon Center); they beat Drexel in both meetings this year.
The argument against Old Dominion: They lost at James Madison; they looked horrible in the CAA tourney (trust me, I was there; the refs bailed them out in a terrible performance against Towson on Saturday, and they were never in their semifinal loss to George Mason).
The argument for Drexel: They have 14 true road wins; they beat Villanova, Syracuse, and Creighton -- all tournament teams -- on the road; some of their conference losses came without Frank Elegar, the team's best post performer.
The argument against Drexel: They are a combined 0-4 against VCU and Old Dominion.
To make things more interesting, Hofstra, the third seed in the conference who played their way out of at-large consideration with a loss to George Mason in the CAA quarters, went 3-1 against VCU, ODU, and Drexel.
Has either team done enough to earn a spot in the field of 64+1? Has either done anything to distinguish it from the other? Can the CAA get a third bid? Can you put one team in over another that it's beaten twice this year?
These are questions that will be answered in the next week or so. I'd like to offer a prediction, but I keep going back and forth. I can think of examples that support both cases. This may help us define for coming years what's more important to the committee: non-conference wins or head-to-head matchups.
That's the link to Tyler Hansbrough getting his nose broken by Gerald Henderson at the end of Carolina's 86-72 win over Duke on Sunday. Did he do it on purpose? Beats me. Watch the link, if you haven't already, and decide for yourself. But I have a lot of thoughts on the play, and I'm going to present them for you here, bulleted-list style.
-They obviously didn't have the camera on Henderson the whole time, but at no point did we see the Duke freshman show remorse at such a gruesome foul, nor did he act the least bit surprised or upset when he was ejected. Does that prove he did it on purpose? Hardly. But it's something to think about.
-On the other hand, I'm going to give Henderson the benefit of the doubt and say that he's not dumb enough to intentionally cheap shot Hansbrough like that. If I felt the urge to hit one of the Heels with a 'bow across the bridge of the nose, there's no way I -- and presumably anyone else with self-preservation on the brain -- would pick the man they call "Psycho T."
-The officials absolutely did the right thing by ejecting Henderson. Even if the foul wasn't intentional, it was extremely reckless, and it resulted in a somewhat serious injury. That kind of irresponsible behavior mustn't go unpunished.
-A lot of people are wondering today what Hansbrough was still doing on the court with the game decided, and a lot of Carolina people are pointing out that Duke still had its starters in. Tar Heel fans are correct; in the college game, it's standard for the leading team to leave its first string on the floor until the oppositon waves the white flag by emptying it's bench. That said ,if you are going to leave these guys in, you have to deal with the consequences. There are a lot of ways Hansbrough could have hurt himself in those final few seconds, and many of them have nothing to do with dirty or reckless play from Duke.
To their credit, however, people from the Carolina program aren't doing much squawking about it.
-While I understand having Hansbrough in the game, there's little need for him to crash the glass after missing a free throw, and even less need for him to go back up for a layup after securing the rebound. The smart play is to kick it back to a guard and run the clock.
-I was disappointed -- and surprised -- at Coach K's comments after the game suggesting that Hansbrough shouldn't have been in the game. He backtracked later and admitted that he shouldn't have had his studs in either, but it came off as petty.
-Henderson's absence in Thursday's ACC quarterfinal vs. North Carolina State will be noticeable. He was arguably Duke's best offensive player on Sunday and appeared to be coming into his own. For a team that can't seem to get its offense running on all cylinders, losing anyone who can fill it up is a big blow.
-I very much doubt that the broken nose will affect Hansbrough's performance, even if he has to wear a mask. He's not a finesse player and he doesn't take a lot of jumpers, so any vision impairment he might suffer will have minimal effects.
2. Virginia Commonwealth and Gonzaga made the committee's job easier by winning their respective conference tournaments Monday night. Had George Mason swiped the Colonial Athletic Association's automatic bid, VCU would have been added to the at-large pool, and the decision for which CAA team to take (see below) would have had a complex new element.
As for the Zags, they have one of the most interesting tournament resumes in history: A mid-major program with four wins over BCS conference teams (North Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Stanford); a slew of losses against major conference schools (Washington State, Georgia, Duke, Virginia, and Memphis); two losses against other mid-majors ranked in the top 25 (Butler and Nevada); but had three losses in a weakish conference. Oh, and their best player has been suspended for the last month due to his arrest on drug possession charges.
My hunch is that the committee would have put its money where its mouth has always been, and rewarded the Bulldogs for scheduling the way they did. But it was far from a foregone conclusion, and you better believe the committee is happy they don't have to make that decision.
3. VCU's win makes the Committee's job easier, but the bubble is still crowded with two CAA teams, Old Dominion and Drexel. I defy you to pick one over the other.
The argument for Old Dominion: Their RPI (39) is stronger than Drexel's (46); they went 15-3 in conference; they split with VCU; they became the first road team in 24 years to win at Georgetown's McDonough Arena (the Hoyas play the majority of their home games at the Verizon Center); they beat Drexel in both meetings this year.
The argument against Old Dominion: They lost at James Madison; they looked horrible in the CAA tourney (trust me, I was there; the refs bailed them out in a terrible performance against Towson on Saturday, and they were never in their semifinal loss to George Mason).
The argument for Drexel: They have 14 true road wins; they beat Villanova, Syracuse, and Creighton -- all tournament teams -- on the road; some of their conference losses came without Frank Elegar, the team's best post performer.
The argument against Drexel: They are a combined 0-4 against VCU and Old Dominion.
To make things more interesting, Hofstra, the third seed in the conference who played their way out of at-large consideration with a loss to George Mason in the CAA quarters, went 3-1 against VCU, ODU, and Drexel.
Has either team done enough to earn a spot in the field of 64+1? Has either done anything to distinguish it from the other? Can the CAA get a third bid? Can you put one team in over another that it's beaten twice this year?
These are questions that will be answered in the next week or so. I'd like to offer a prediction, but I keep going back and forth. I can think of examples that support both cases. This may help us define for coming years what's more important to the committee: non-conference wins or head-to-head matchups.
posted by H.S. Slam, Ph.D at 11:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home