Below are the 4 most recent journal entries recorded in ccnyncaa's LiveJournal:

Wednesday, January 24th, 2007
5:53 pm	NFL Final Four Picks Who's going to Jeff's Super Bowl? The Patriots and Bears. Who will I be rooting for? The Colts and Bears. But unlike many, many years, I'm fine with whomever ends up in the big game in two weeks. Pats-Bears, Pats-Saints, Colts-Bears, Colts-Saints, Daniel LaRusso-Johnny Lawrence, whatever. All would be compelling matchups for different reasons. Let's break open the chips & dip, pizza and wings, and now that I'm in my 30s, the Pepcid Complete and watch some football! UPDATE 6:47 p.m. - 1-for-1 with Da Bears manhandling New Orleans. Not to put too weird an analogy on the game, but wasn't it like the Battle of the Bulge, with Chicago as the Allies pushing through Axis lines, the Axis fights hard briefly but ultimately is overwhelmed. Or the Saints couldn't hold onto the ball. Either way. UPDATE 10:20 p.m. - Good for the Colts! Even better for Peyton! Nice to see them finally get that Patriots monkey off their backs. And all the folks who tired of seeing New England have no excuse for Super Bowl XLI in two weeks. Early edge for the game? I've gotta say the Colts, but the Bears defense is so good I don't think I would confident betting my own money. No matter how much praise Peyton gets, though, he still has to win the Super Bowl or he'll forever be compared to Dan Marino. (Comment on this)
Friday, August 11th, 2006
10:43 am	NCAA Tournament Expansion Talk The men's and women's basketball committees are meeting this week in Orlando and one of the hot topics up for discussion is whether they should expand the NCAA Tournament to include more than the current field of 65. This idea was floated back in March at the Final Four and USA Today raised the issue in May on the grounds of parity. In both cases expansion propsals topped out at 80 teams. Now as the committees prepare to meet the National Association of Basketball Coaches is asking for complete doubling of the field to 128 teams. That's right 128 teams. The reasons cited for such a grand expansion are the failure to include tournament worthy teams and the fact the 64/65 team format has been in place for a long time. The also cite the increased number of Division I teams, the fact the NIT is now controlled by the NCAAs, and the George Mason tournament run. First of all the longevity of one format over another is a weak argument. I would take that to mean it works and very well so there is no need to change it. As for NCAA control of both postseason tournaments, that does not seem to matter to me. The two reasons I take issue with the most is the "George Mason" argument and the increased number of Division 1 teams. The GM argument stipulates that by expanding the field it increases the chances for small schools to have their own magical Final Four run based on the Patriots' improbable run in the the 2006 Final Four. However I would argue that a 128 team expansion would actually kill such runs because it add an additional game these Cinderella schools have to play. It is my observation that the more games a lower seed has to play the worse off they are in continuing the run. In a 128 team field GM would have played a team 11 spots lower than them before facing the higher seeds. While there is no conclusive evidence of how an extra game would effect the outcomes of future matchups I tend to think that had GM been saddled with an opener against a lower seed it would have hurt them going forward. And if they contest the first round a weekend before the round of 64 or even at different sites then changing sites or experiencing a delay also gives higher seeds more time to prep for the upcoming lower seed. I think the GM argument is a celebrity cause for the coaches who want to strike a tone with the fans who they perceive are hungry for a bevy of lower seeds penetrating deep into the tournament. I think the rarity of the feat is what makes it compelling and special to watch. The second argument on the number of D1 schools is also a simple argument to refute. Taking the CollegeRPI rankings posted by Jerry Palm there are 334 D1 schools playing basketball. The argument the coaches are making is based on that number but the real number that should be considered is the number of teams which finished above .500 last season which is only 171 teams. Why is this important? Because outside of winning an automatic bid there is no way a team which lost more than they won should get anywhere close to the NCAA Tournament. In fact I am not entirely sure a team that is under .500 in their conference should be allowed into the NCAA Tournament. Assuming you use this rule it would mean you are taking 75% of the teams, who, in many cases, did nothing but finish with one or two more wins that losses. This would essentially render the regular season worthless except for purposes of seeding. It would set up a system where all a major conference school has to do is win 15-17 games and they know they are getting in to the tournament. And while parity is nice the tournament also has to have credibility and adding 63 teams, of which there are at most eight who were borderline exclusions, is an inherently bad idea. Getting into the NCAA Tournament must actually mean more than playing one game above .500 all season. The prize of winning the national championship must be based on earning your way into an exclusive field of teams which includes enough good teams to make you earn your way to the top. A field of 65 is less than half the winning teams out there which means the regular season has served its purpose in weeding out the bad teams. The reasons the NBCA gave are cover for the real motive behind such an expansion and that is job security. Most of the job stability which surrounds a coach is tied to his ability to make the NCAA Tournament. Coaches like Jim Boeheim, who floated the 80 team field at the Final Four, are afraid they cannot guarantee a spot in the tournament every year because of the increased parity from the mid-majors. They also unwilling to give up there lucrative home games against St. Sebastian's School for the Fingerless in exchange for road games at mid-majors or even hosting them for fear they will get beaten at home. In other words there are apparently enough coaches who would feel a lot better about keeping their job if getting into the tournament were easier. In my opinion getting into the tournament is not supposed to be easy. Getting a NCAA berth should mean you played well all season and you acquitted yourself as one of the best 65 teams in the country. Yes, automatic bids to lower seeded conference finishers does muck things up a bit, and yes a few teams would get shafted every year who could have won one or two games. But the last thing you want to is make so a winning record virtually locks you into a NCAA Tournament berth and until I see more than one #11 seed making the Final Four every 20 years I would not tinker with the current system. It seems to a do a decent job producing a worthy national champion. (Comment on this)
Thursday, August 3rd, 2006
5:50 pm	Musings on Bermuda and the World: Overanalysis of the World ... My initial reaction upon compiling the final rankings from the World Lacrosse Championships was that the sixth place team (Japan) should not be 1-6 when the ninth place team (Finland) is 6-1. The analogy that keeps coming to mind is if David Stern forced the Knicks into the playoffs over the Grizzlies. I’m not sure if that’s accurate, but it sure looks that way based purely on record. However, this is the natural result of grouping the best six teams into one division at the outset of the tournament. It’d be like if the NFL regrouped every year so that the final four teams played in the same division the next season. Now THAT would enforce parity: put the best four teams into NFL Division 1, the next best four teams into NFL Division 2, etc. Seriously, who would win the NFLD1 this season - Pittsburgh, Seattle, Washington, or Denver? Who would have won it last season – New England, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh or Atlanta? Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Tags. In the World Lacrosse Championships, though, it creates the not-incorrect impression that it’s the US and Canada playing for the title; Australia, the Iroquois and England competing for the bronze; Japan basically guaranteed the sixth spot by virtue of being square in the middle of the world powers and everyone else; and everyone else beating each other up for placement. The Japanese can’t beat the first or second tier powers but they can’t be beaten by anyone else. Check out Pointstreak for their very complete final division standings (reflecting the placing and medal games as well) and the revealing points scored, etc. stats. Before getting into the rather shocking US loss, let me first address my two favorite teams: Bermuda and the Iroquois. Although the team started out as little more than a ready made punch- and headline, a little research revealed that there is a very good reason why Bermuda (let’s be honest) sucks at lacrosse: they only started playing three years ago. As of January 2005, there were only 30 players in the island’s organized lacrosse club. One LaxPower forum contributor points out that the sport was brought to the island by North American expats, and another sport from British expats, rugby, grew rapidly in the small country; Bermuda now hosts one of the most competitive rugby tournaments in the world and has a pretty solid team. Look for this team to improve in the 2010 championships. In contrast, the Iroquois have played lacrosse for hundred of years. They have to be disappointed with their finish this year. Fourth place is not an unrealistic final place for them, or even a bad one, but they were in a position to medal. More than that, going in to the tournament, I bet they thought they could sneak by at least one of the US-Canada double-headed monster. A silver or even gold medal was a reach, but still possible. Unfortunately, as lacrosse grows in popularity internationally, it will be harder and harder for the Iroquois to field teams that are internationally strong. They have a total population of about 75,000 people. Statistically they have fewer world class athletes to draw on from their population than countries like Australia (20 million people) and England (50 million) where lacrosse is becoming more widely played. Granted, the Iroquois love lacrosse like the English love soccer and Australia loves beating the shit out of people, er, I mean Aussie Rules Football. Even though there are fewer world class athletes, more of them want to play lacrosse. For the time being and for the near future, that should off set the disparity in population. But if lacrosse continues to become more popular across the world, that balancing agent will become moot. After 2010, the Iroquois may be hard pressed to rank as high as 4th again. Onto the championship game. For the first time in almost three decades, the US lost a match, and it was to the same country they lost the last time – Canada. What does this mean for American lacrosse and the game internationally? Well, contrary to what some people on LaxPower have been insisting, it doesn’t mean that the entire US program needs to be overhauled. The team was great until the very last game… when they played against a very good team on its home turf. And Canadians care about lacrosse too. They cheered and supported the home team the way they should have. They influenced the game and to lose to the Canucks under those circumstances doesn’t require an overhaul of the whole system. This is not USA Basketball circa 2002. And in fact, this is very good for the sport internationally. The US has been dominant in the World Championships for years, not losing a game since 1978. Competition is good. This result will certainly help lacrosse in Canada, and the idea that the dominant power in the world is vulnerable will help the sport in other countries too. With the championships over and the rankings final, each team has someone to gun for: the US wants to take down Canada, Australia and Iroquois want to move into silver or gold contention, Ireland would love to displace England as the dominant British Isles team, and Bermuda is hoping to beat somebody…. ANYBODY. Look for this sport to move closer to the center in the next few years and to actually get some major screen time on ESPN in 2010. People should take notice now so they can make fun of the band wagon jumpers in four years. Trust me – it makes you feel smarter than you actually are. (Comment on this)
Monday, July 31st, 2006
9:46 pm	SBT just went crazy... After my glowing review of how adeptly Weis has handled the media, the media snapped back this week, as two South Bend Tribune, uh, writers? decided that they wanted to spend ALL WEEK attacking Notre Dame with innuendo, and passive aggressive association. The "writers" started with a legitimate criticism of the over-the-top nature of the Jimmy Clausen commitment. However, the two hacks in question decided that, despite having to write several more articles this week, they would just tap dance on the integrity of the Irish football program through unfounded hints and allegations. The article "Into the Gray" is an insult to journalism. First they start with a policy stated almost 4 years ago under a different coach and regime, then assume that that is the continued policy of the new coach. Then they hint that Coach Weis violated NCAA rules in the Claussen commitment press conference, but have no actual connection between Coach Weis and the Claussen family, the PR firm they hired to put on the press conference, or anything having to do with the press conference. Except that the kid put on the press conference to announce that he is coming to Notre Dame. They bash Weis for "allowing" an ESPN film crew to follow the much-hyped recruit during his visit to the Spring Game. They have no proof that the Coach or administration did anything to orchestrate such contact, beyond the fact that ESPN (much like the bitter "reporters" at the SBT) were given press credentials. They argue that Coach Weis should have somehow stopped the ESPN crew from pursuing a story, due to some outdated policy. However, previously in this same article, these writers had bashed ESPN for getting their shadows in an Irish Sports Report (ISR is published by the SBT) writer's picture of the recruits. They quote bylaws and a vague comment from notorious say-nothing Athletic Director Kevin White. But there is no evidence of wrongdoing, and all they do is insinuate that Coach Weis violated NCAA regulations. I could deal with one poorly written article, as the SBT is no New York Times or Washington Post. However, this poorly written story now has snowballed into what appears to be a concerted effort on the part of the SBT to attack the football program with hyperbole and innuendo. They compare Claussen, by all accounts a well-behaved, intelligent, Christian boy who works very hard to a cocaine snorting failure USC quarterback. They compare Weis' current recruiting success to USC's recent recruiting success, then suggest that as a result the Irish will have problems like USC is facing right now (Players being given $10,000 per month apartments, players' families being given million dollar homes to live in, and a sexual assault charge). Then, Jason Kelly (usually a middling to decent writer, if not very talented) suggests that the current Irish recruiting machine is just like the notoriously unscrupulous recruiting of the "Fab Five," a class of 5 basketball recruits for the University of Michigan which accepted cash handouts from millionaire boosters to come to Ann Arbor, forcing UM to furl their Final Four banners from that era. Usually, the SBT has been even handed with the Notre Dame athletics teams. They criticize when criticism is warranted, and praise when praise is due in their commentary. However, this recent spate of unsubstantiated drivel is highly uncharacteristic, and appears to be a campaign initiated by the Tribune administration to attack Weis' recruiting practices. On message boards, this is speculated to stem from a perceived slight on the part of the SBT, who feel that national media outlets have been given far better access than the SBT, and that the SBT is jealous. I don't care what the reasons for the attack are, but I am disappointed in the SBT, and as a result, I will not be purchasing the Irish Sports Report this year as I normally do. I know that my actions will have no impact on the reporting in the SBT, but at least I can feel like I've done my part. In fairness, the South Bend Tribune Sports writers are separate from the writers and staff of the SBT as a whole. I have no issue with the rest of the SBT, except that the editor-in-chief and other administrative persons signed off on (or possibly even orchestrated) such a series of unsrupulous and inflammatory articles. The University should pull their credentials entirely. (Comment on this)