Not vacationing, but travelling as in basketball.
I still don't know what to make of the final play in Vanderbilt's loss to Georgetown. ESPN along with every news story, including the Washington Post, raised the issue of travelling before the winning shot, which suggests he travelled before shooting (wisdom of crowds). But in reading definitions of travelling including on the NCAA's site, and watching the replay, I just don't see it.
Certainly Jeff Green lifted his pivot foot, but my understanding is it's OK to lift the pivot foot to shoot or pass. As I mentioned to a friend if you couldn't ever lift your pivot foot, every layup or dunk would be a walk. You clearly can't put it down (that's two steps) and you can't lift it to dribble.
The more I watch the more I think he may have hopped when he first caught the ball. His right foot certainly moves, it's unclear if his left slides or comes up before the dribble. And I'm not clear if since he picked the foot up and then spun, if he pivotted off his non-pivot foot, and when the ball came loose that may have been a double dribble. In football we'd have the reverse angle camera but I guess CBS doesn't use that. Legal or not, it certainly was an ugly setup before a great shot.
Regardless, Vanderbilt's execution in the last 2.5 seconds was horrible. That's a lot of time especially if you can pass the ball the first 30 or 40 feet upcourt. Call a timeout, set up a play and get the ball to Byars or Foster. Heck when I was an assistant manager at Vanderbilt, we had a play where we'd fire the ball up the sidelines to mid court and get a quick time out. That would have given then 2 seconds, enough time to get the ball in to Foster or Byars with time to make a move and get a good look. Or even dump in underneath if the defense all ran to the perimeter.
Saturday, March 24
Thursday, March 22
King of Queens Air Date
According to information on CBS.com and elsewhere, Monica's walk on role will be on TV April 9th at 9:30 PM Eastern/Pacific, that's 8:30 for those of you who are slow.
We'll be on the road, so call Monica's cell phone if you want to say "hi" after the show. Remember that we won't have seen it, but we know what happens.
If you have no clue what I'm talking about see my earlier post http://monicaandadam.blogspot.com/2007/01/princess-of-queens.html
We'll be on the road, so call Monica's cell phone if you want to say "hi" after the show. Remember that we won't have seen it, but we know what happens.
If you have no clue what I'm talking about see my earlier post http://monicaandadam.blogspot.com/2007/01/princess-of-queens.html
Monday, March 12
NCAA Tournament
Every year on this weekend, the NCAA committees select and seed the teams for the men's and women's NCAA tournaments. We've come to expect a fair amount of controversy with both the final teams that are in and out, as well as with the seeding process.
Quite honestly I haven't followed college basketball closely enough to make any judgement on what the committee did this year. I do believe that we all should accept that if a team isn't obviously in -- by virtue of performance or winning its conference tournament -- it's at the mercy of the committee. And way too much energy goes into arguing who the 40th or so best team in the country is. Having had it happen to my team, I know how frustrating it is to miss. But the truth is that team had no shot to win anyway and wasn't likely to get past the second round. If you want to be in, don't leave any doubt in the committee's mind.
But one thing I've heard really bothers me. In her ESPN chat tonight and I'd read this last week as well, Judy Southard, chair of the women's committee, said, "We did an incredible amount of research and spent hundreds of hours watching game film." OK, but why and why call this out? If this is a completely objective process why watch the teams play? Isn't it about the numbers (wins, loses, strentgth of schedule, last ten games, RPI, etc.)? Which part of the seeding process is about how good a team looks on tape? No doubt the committee members are fans and enjoy watching basketball as recreation and I do see wanting people in the know making decisions. But having watched the teams play can only make one less objective, especially since if you only see a team once or twice AND you're watching them against top competition, you become negatively biased.
I'm not saying the committee shouldn't watch the teams play. But to go out of your way to watch -- watching film not live TV -- and bragging about it seems to be an admission of subjectively.
Enough whining. Vanderbilt's men's and women's teams are both in the tournament. The women have a #2 seed and a chance to go a long way in the tournament starting on Sunday against Delaware St. The men have a #6 seed and take on George Washington Thursday afternoon. If they win, they get matched with local favorite Washington State.
Go 'Dores!
Quite honestly I haven't followed college basketball closely enough to make any judgement on what the committee did this year. I do believe that we all should accept that if a team isn't obviously in -- by virtue of performance or winning its conference tournament -- it's at the mercy of the committee. And way too much energy goes into arguing who the 40th or so best team in the country is. Having had it happen to my team, I know how frustrating it is to miss. But the truth is that team had no shot to win anyway and wasn't likely to get past the second round. If you want to be in, don't leave any doubt in the committee's mind.
But one thing I've heard really bothers me. In her ESPN chat tonight and I'd read this last week as well, Judy Southard, chair of the women's committee, said, "We did an incredible amount of research and spent hundreds of hours watching game film." OK, but why and why call this out? If this is a completely objective process why watch the teams play? Isn't it about the numbers (wins, loses, strentgth of schedule, last ten games, RPI, etc.)? Which part of the seeding process is about how good a team looks on tape? No doubt the committee members are fans and enjoy watching basketball as recreation and I do see wanting people in the know making decisions. But having watched the teams play can only make one less objective, especially since if you only see a team once or twice AND you're watching them against top competition, you become negatively biased.
I'm not saying the committee shouldn't watch the teams play. But to go out of your way to watch -- watching film not live TV -- and bragging about it seems to be an admission of subjectively.
Enough whining. Vanderbilt's men's and women's teams are both in the tournament. The women have a #2 seed and a chance to go a long way in the tournament starting on Sunday against Delaware St. The men have a #6 seed and take on George Washington Thursday afternoon. If they win, they get matched with local favorite Washington State.
Go 'Dores!
Wednesday, March 7
Poker pet peeve
After playing in a poker tournament yesterday, I have a new #1 poker pet peeve -- when the short stack initiates talk about chopping.*
I don't mean a situation where it's heads up or the stacks are basically even and it's a reasonable discussion. It's the scenario where someone realizes he's going to bubble (bust out short of the money) and tries to make a ridiculous deal to salvage something for getting "close".
Yesterday we were down to six players where the top four got paid. The guy on my right says, "if we chop now, we'd each get $100 (on a $30 buy-in tournament)". I was second in chips at the time and he and one other player had pretty short stacks. I thought why on earth would I or any of the top three stacks take even money, since we aren't close to even in stacks. And given the short stacks, why would any of the big stacks chop now since waiting a few hands is likely to knock out a player with zero money.
I'm not opposed to chopping, though I get closer and closer to the viewpoint of a friend of mine who says he never chops, when I keep hearing crazy offers like this.
* For those who don't play poker or don't play tournaments very often, here's a bit about chopping. Tournament payouts tend to be very top heavy -- yesterday was $295 for 1st, $195 for second, $95 for third. Typically at the end of a small tournament (the stuff you and I can afford, not the stuff you see on TV), every player has a small stack relative to the size of the initial bet. So one hand can dramatically shift the distribution of chips, and it's typically hard to fold. Thus you aren't really playing poker in the traditional sense as much as you're hoping to get lucky. If the stacks are close to even, effectively you're drawing straws to see who gets $95, who gets $195, and who gets $295. To avoid this wide variation based almost totally on luck, players often agree to chop the prize pool, not necessarily evenly, at this stage. When we got to two players yesterday, we did wind up chopping with me taking a smaller cut of the money since I had fewer chips.
I don't mean a situation where it's heads up or the stacks are basically even and it's a reasonable discussion. It's the scenario where someone realizes he's going to bubble (bust out short of the money) and tries to make a ridiculous deal to salvage something for getting "close".
Yesterday we were down to six players where the top four got paid. The guy on my right says, "if we chop now, we'd each get $100 (on a $30 buy-in tournament)". I was second in chips at the time and he and one other player had pretty short stacks. I thought why on earth would I or any of the top three stacks take even money, since we aren't close to even in stacks. And given the short stacks, why would any of the big stacks chop now since waiting a few hands is likely to knock out a player with zero money.
I'm not opposed to chopping, though I get closer and closer to the viewpoint of a friend of mine who says he never chops, when I keep hearing crazy offers like this.
* For those who don't play poker or don't play tournaments very often, here's a bit about chopping. Tournament payouts tend to be very top heavy -- yesterday was $295 for 1st, $195 for second, $95 for third. Typically at the end of a small tournament (the stuff you and I can afford, not the stuff you see on TV), every player has a small stack relative to the size of the initial bet. So one hand can dramatically shift the distribution of chips, and it's typically hard to fold. Thus you aren't really playing poker in the traditional sense as much as you're hoping to get lucky. If the stacks are close to even, effectively you're drawing straws to see who gets $95, who gets $195, and who gets $295. To avoid this wide variation based almost totally on luck, players often agree to chop the prize pool, not necessarily evenly, at this stage. When we got to two players yesterday, we did wind up chopping with me taking a smaller cut of the money since I had fewer chips.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
