 |
| |
|
 |
 |
Ending the Jacobsen/Dunleavy debate Posted: Friday February 08, 2002 1:51 PM
The 'bag is back! Well, sort of. I've been getting hammered by magazine deadlines this week, so apologies for the delay -- and let's get to the questions.... Quit dodging the question -- Duke fans have heard it from you for the past
two years. How do you feel now about Coach K's decision to take Mike Dunleavy
over Casey
Jacobsen?
Aargh. This is the debate that never dies. Many thanks to my knucklehead pal Seth Davis for bringing it up again last week, but did you notice that the day he did so, Jacobsen dropped 49 on Arizona State? Quick refresher: Over a year ago, I wrote that Coach K would regret his decision to sign Dunleavy over Jacobsen. And you know what? I was wrong. There's no way Coach K regrets his call and shame on me for saying he would. The crazy thing is, Jacobsen is making a ridiculous late run for All-America honors. Did anybody catch his sick 41-point show in Thursday's win against Oregon? (No, of course you didn't, since FOX Sports was inexplicably showing Cal-Oregon State.) What's most amazing about C-Jake's scoring tear is that Stanford's motion offense isn't designed for one guy to go off. After Marvin O'Connor's now-legendary 37-point game against Stanford in last year's NCAA tournament, Jacobsen told me he'd love to play in a system that allowed gunners like O'Connor to thrive, but Stanford's just isn't like that. That's why I look at Jacobsen's 40-plus games as the most impressive individual achievements of the year so far. (Speaking of 40-Plus, wasn't that a magazine that my freshman-year hallmate hid under his mattress?) The second-most impressive feat was Dunleavy's three-steals-in-30-seconds against Maryland, which could be taken as a symbol of everything that Dunleavy brings to the table. It's funny that we'd even be comparing Dunleavy and Jacobsen these days, since Dunleavy's growth spurt has him playing power forward on occasion, but the fact is, Dunleavy has an ever-so-slightly better feel for the entire game (passing, defense, spin moves to the hoop) than his West Coast colleague. Percentages aside, I still think Jacobsen is a better shooter and moves a hair better away from the ball to get open for his shot. In sum, they're both great players and I'm a moron for driving a wedge where there was no need for one. At the same time, I'd pay to see a made-for-TV game of one-on-one between the two, kind of like those lame Tiger Woods vs. David Duval nighttime golf extravaganzas. (Followed, of course, by Seth and me going at it ourselves. Knowing Davis's sorry game, I'll establish myself as an eight-point favorite.) Is it just me or is coach Jim Harrick starting to make Georgia look an awful
lot like Fresno State East? Like all Bulldogs' fans, I'm excited about the teams
success this year, but it seems as if every player on the team has either
arrived via junior college, had serious academic problems, been in trouble with
the law or all of the above. I want to see the 'Dawgs do well, but not if it
costs the program its integrity. I mean, Harrick tried to recruit Kenny
Brunner!
Hey, watch the Brunner slams, pal! (Or I'll have to tell you about the night I shared a six-pack with Kenny in my Twin Falls, Idaho hotel room. I'll have you know, samurai swords were nowhere in sight.) You raise a good point, though. I don't have a big problem with juco transfers per se (a lot of them are unfairly maligned), but the facts in Athens ain't good. Let's see, last month Tony Cole (a juco transfer) and Steve Thomas were suspended from the team for their roles in an alleged sexual attack. (Both were reinstated, though Cole hasn't played since.) And none of Harrick's three signees were admitted to Georgia this year for various academic deficiencies. Amazing, isn't it, that the Dawgs are playing so well with so few bodies? Care to comment on Bill Carmody and the job he's done this year with
Northwestern? Yeah, the Big Ten is watered down and low on talent, but he has
the 'Cats playing tough basketball in a good
conference.
You're right, Chad: Carmody's Wildcats have been looking awfully good. I saw their one-point loss at Ohio State last weekend (a game Northwestern should have won), and they followed that with a pasting of Michigan State. The question about the "Princeton-style" offense has always been, How good would it be if you had top-notch athletes performing it? And while Northwestern isn't the Lakers talent-wise, it's showing that a mix of ability, talent and discipline can be a force in the Big Ten. I'd keep an eye on the Wildcats in the Big Ten tournament (and, just maybe, they'll capture a long-awaited NCAA tourney berth). RANDOM THOUGHTS "Sports Illustrated's Grant Wahl put out a list of eight teams he feels have the best chance of winning the national title. His lists the past two years have included the winners -- Michigan State and Duke. This year's list: Duke, Georgia, Gonzaga, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland and UCLA. I'm told Wahl is aware Steve Lavin is still coaching the Bruins." Ha. First, let's explain the Magic Eight for the 879th time: These are not the eight teams with "the best chance of winning the national title." In fact, I always expect a couple of my teams to lose in the first round or two. All I'm saying is, I think UCLA is capable of getting hot and winning it all. The Bruins might also stink up the joint (see: last week's 29-point loss at Oregon). Same goes for Georgia, though perhaps for my SEC choice I should have gone with ... Do you think Alabama will have a shot to win the NCAA tournament? Do you
think they could stay with teams like Duke and
Kansas?
Who would have suspected the Tide to emerge as the top team in the SEC this year, ahead of Florida, Kentucky and Georgia? Not me. Alabama is 20-3, has won 14 of its last 15 games and is running roughshod over one of the toughest leagues in the land. Nobody is questioning the Tide's schedule this year (quality wins against Memphis, Utah, Notre Dame, at Georgia and at Kentucky), and even their losses are good (on the road against Missouri, UCLA and Auburn). Whether Mark Gottfried's team can take the next step and win it all, as you ask, is another matter. Right now Duke and Kansas are WAY in front of everyone else in the country. It's not even close, and I fully expect Duke to take care of Maryland next week in College Park to prove my point. (Cue angry Terps fans letters...) I noticed that in
your recent column you mentioned that the "Magic Eight" was being
dropped to seven because Illinois was blown out at Indiana. While that fact
cannot be denied, how can Maryland, UCLA and Gonzaga still be on the list?
Maryland suffered a 20-plus point loss to Duke. UCLA lost to Oregon by 29. And
Gonzaga lost by 18 to the Illini earlier in the season. Since you say Illinois
is no longer a national title contender, how can Gonzaga still be
one?
You have an eagle eye, Jason, and it's my fault for not laying out my official Magic Eight™ "blowout threshold." It's 30 points. If you lose by 30 or more, you have no business being a national title contender. So that leaves UCLA, Maryland and Gonzaga on the board (but, sadly, not Illinois). I like to think UCLA knew they were in danger of falling out of the Magic Eight and that gave the Bruins that extra little incentive to narrow the margin to 29. Plenty of thoughtful responses to my screed last week against the devaluation of the conference season.... Hurrah! I totally agree with your comments concerning conference tournaments.
I will go even further: I believe the tournaments are a bore and no more than an
excuse by the media to root for the Cinderellas. I'm from Big Ten country, and
as far as I'm concerned, the Big Ten champ did it during the season. I think pro
sports and their endless playoffs are a bore as well! And I actually believe the
BCS is a better playoff
system.
Intriguing point about the BCS, Tom. Believe me, I love the NCAA tournament, but you've gotta say this: For all the controversy the BCS generates, college football crowns its BEST TEAM as the national champion more often than college hoops. Dude, you're a dork! Championship Week is awesome. I see what you are saying,
but come on! Is it fair to ask a team that has won the regular season to do it
again in the conference tournament? Probably not, but who cares! It's exciting!
It's neat to see teams get into the tournament for the first time ever by
earning their way in with a conference tournament victory. Makes for some good
stories come
March.
Wheee! Championship Week is made for Americans like Jennifer who don't have the patience to enjoy a conference season! And who like to see deserving teams like UC-Irvine get stiffed because of one bad night after having 16 great nights during the season! And who like to use lots of exclamation points!!! Let's be clear: Cheap TV Drama Week is an oozing, pus-filled sore on what is otherwise the best month in sports. I agree with your comments on how worthless the regular season has become in
college hoops. I'm also tired of "Power Conferences" getting six
and seven teams into the tournament and watching five of them lose in the first
weekend while deserving teams sit home and watch. I propose a solution that will
make the regular season and conference tourneys much more interesting. Here it
goes: There are 31 conferences in a 64-team field. All regular-season conference
champs receive an automatic bid. Next, all 31 conferences have tournaments. The
tournament champ also receives an automatic bid. Then we have 62 teams in the
field, with two at-large bids. If the regular-season champ is the same as the
tournament champ, then that opens up an additional at-large bid (i.e., Duke wins
the regular season and ACC tournament, there are 61 automatic bids, and now three
at-large bids). This does several things. To start with, it takes a large amount
of politics out of the system. Second, it forces teams to take games and
tournaments much more seriously. I may be in the minority, but I think the
Maryland-N.C. State ACC tourney game in '74 was a good thing for college hoops.
The game was more hotly contested because they knew only one of them would have
a shot at the national
championship.
Nice idea, Brian. I agree with most of what you write ... except the stuff about the Maryland-N.C. State game being good for college hoops. In fact, your NCAA tournament proposal would almost surely have meant that N.C. State would have made the NCAAs in '74. That's one reason why I like it. But it's not foolproof. Under your system, Oklahoma could miss this year's NCAAs even if it finishes second in the Big 12 (behind Kansas) and has an off night in the Big 12 tournament. That wouldn't be right, either, for you'd be victimizing the Sooners for being in a great conference. Having two MEAC teams in the NCAAs but not Oklahoma would give me the same unsettling feeling I get when I think about Rhode Island having as many senators as California. Of course, I hate conference tournaments and think they should be eradicated completely. All that said, your format is probably the best solution if you want the conference season AND the conference tournaments to mean something. That's all for now. See you next week. Sports Illustrated senior writer Grant Wahl covers the college basketball beat and is a regular contributor to CNNSI.com. Click here to send him a question. |
