SportsRatings: College Basketball

The "Ivan Brothers" ads are annoying and stupid

Taking a break from reviewing upcoming games to complain about the ads that assault you every second if you watch on March Madness On Demand (tip: switch games just before you let a game go to commercial, so you don't get stuck until the ads are over).

My least-favorite ad of this March Madness season is the "Ivan Brothers." Really, I don't see the appeal of the two big 'roided-out white guys playing basketball. So they're vikings. This is what passes for funny now? Maybe I'm the only one who hates it. Then again, it could be because the commercials are featured 20 times during every game. Maybe the Ivan Brothers are hilarious in small doses.

Here they are again in case you haven't seen them.

Ironically the longer-form video is a lot more amusing than the shorter ads, and has a bizarre ending where we find out the Ivan Brothers have disappeared never to return, or perhaps never existed in the first place. What?

I don't get it, why do that? Just to copy Lost by having freaky time-changey things happen? Of course what this has to do with Capital One I'll never know. No wonder all the banks are in trouble.

New Mexico's Alford not handling success well?

Watch this YouTube video, assuming it stays around, showing New Mexico coach Steve Alford in a "heated exchange" with BYU player Jonathan Tavernari after Alford's Lobo's beat the Cougars in Provo, 84-82. The word "asshole" can be heard coming from Alford's mouth.

Alford reportedly was congratulating Tavernari for his career at BYU, but Tavernari was not happy after the loss and didn't accept Alford's overture. At least, that's what Alford says. But Tavernari, who has a history of trash talking, apologized for the incident profusely afterwards, so there's little doubt that he started the exchange.

But Alford is supposed to be a coach, and be in control. A player can be excused for being hot-headed after a game, but a coach has no business calling an opposing player an asshole. Back off, let it go, be a man (like Mike Gundy). Don't escalate it, which is what Alford did. He looked like he wanted the kid to take a swing, something we might have expected from Alford's mentor, Bobby Knight.

Alford's season at New Mexico has been a great success, with the Lobos now 27-3 and winning the regular season in a strong Mountain West conference. But his actions are what you might expect more from the coach of a struggling team. Earlier in the season he displayed the prominent chip on his shoulder by asserting that New Mexico gave Texas A&M a "Christmas gift" by spotting them a 2-0 lead. That was after a win, too.

The Lobos are riding high and hoping for a very good seed in the NCAA tournament. If Alford is this out of control (some would say "emotional") after big wins, what will he be like if New Mexico goes on a deep tournament run? It could get interesting.

Alford was reprimanded by the league for the incident. Interestingly, Alford said that the reprimand "wasn't required" because it was just something that happened in the heat of the moment. Being cool under pressure is something that every coach should aspire to, and Alford certainly failed on that score. All the same, being hotheaded didn't prevent quite a few coaches from having great success.

These days, however, antics like Alford's are less tolerated than ever before. Ask Mike Leach how forgiving the current environment is! Though presently riding high, should Alford ever be on the "outs" with his school he might be wise to tone it down a bit.

Congratulations to Alcorn State and Bryant, both no longer winless

Several weeks ago the last undefeated Division I basketball team—Kentucky—lost for the first time. But it was just in the last few days the two remaining winless teams both got a victory.

The inverted counterparts to 25-1 Kansas and Kentucky, Alcorn State and Bryant were 0-24 and 0-25 before last Saturday. That's when Alcorn State took on in-state rival and SWAC brethren Mississippi Valley State at home in Lorman.

The Braves were ranked dead last at the time in the SportsRatings College Basketball Power Rating, both overall and in the individual Strength and Success rankings. The Delta Devils weren't rated much higher, though: at 6-19, they were 342nd in Strength, 332nd in Success, and 342nd overall.

But Alcorn State's Strength rating was so low—five points worse than Bryant's, even—that Mississippi Valley State was projected as a nearly a six point favorite by the system, with a 64% chance to win. That spread looked about right at halftime as the Devils took a 30-25 lead, but the Braves fought back, taking a 7 point lead late before barely holding on for a 55-54 win.

The win briefly took Alcorn State out of the national cellar as only Bryant was left winless. But just five days later the Bulldogs wiped the "0" off their slate. Going in 0-26 against Wagner (4-34, ranked #326 in Strength), it didn't appear to be a great opportunity as they were playing on the road. But only one of Wagner's four wins came at home, and the Bulldogs took a 28-23 halftime lead and like Alcorn State, survived a wild finish to win 53-51.

The wins didn't change much; the teams are still last (Alcorn State) and second-to-last (Bryant) in the SportsRatings power ratings, just like they were last week. Impressively, though, both wins were against other Division I teams, albeit very weak ones. And the teams have to feel 100% better about their seasons than they did just a few short days ago.

Bill Self should not have been Coach of the Year

Bill Self of Kansas was named AP's 2009 Coach of the Year after leading Kansas to the Big Twelve title a year after losing all five starters from last year's national championship team.

It's clear to me that Self should not have won the award, and here's why.

• Self had the best recruiting class in the country this year. In an era where recruiting is everything, I don't see how it was his coaching that led to their success. While it's true that freshman need to be well-coached and he did a fine job certainly, there are many coaches who did more with less.
• Kansas was ranked in the pre-season and performed roughly to expectations. I ranked Kansas #14 in my pre-season Top 25, while the AP had them #24. Unless they were expected to be a middle-of-the-pack Big 12 team their performance wasn't unbelievable.
• Giving the award to an established coach and program that has just won the national title and is clearly a basketball dynasty shortchanges the hard work that other coaches have to go through to have success. Almost anyone could have success at Kansas.

I believe Coach of the Year should be given to a coach who achieved a lot with very little, rather than a Rich Get Richer story (or in this case, the Rich Stay Rich). Perhaps their should be two different awards, one for recruiting and one for coaching. Certainly it was Self's recruiting that saved the season this year, though even that becomes a lot easier when you're at Kansas. So his success had three components: 1) the Kansas name, which makes recruiting easier, 2) his recruiting success, which is a credit to him and his staff (assuming he's playing by the rules of course), and 3) his actual coaching ability, which took a few veterans and a slew of freshman and had them playing great basketball this season.

What I'd like to see are elements #1 and #2 separated from #3. Look at what a team has going for it, and try to compare coaching jobs based on how much they have to work with. Given that, here are some coaches that I think are more deserving, in no particular order:

1. Mike Anderson of Missouri: If you're looking at the Big 12, why not Mike Anderson? His team didn't receive a single vote in the pre-season AP top 25 (I listed them at #28), yet they came close to winning the conference and made it farther in the NCAA tournament than Self's team.
2. Frank Martin, Kansas State: Another Big 12 possibility. After losing not only Michael Beasley but also Bill Walker, the cupboard was pretty bare for 2008-2009. But the team had a winning Big 12 record and a 22-12 overall record after making the NIT.
3. Bruce Weber, Illinois: Not much was expected of the Illini, who also got no votes pre-season. But they competed for the Big Ten title until a late downturn, and made the NCAA tournament.
4. Ed DeChellis, Penn State: Recent NIT champions, the Nittany Lions also were unheralded this season, and don't have nearly the recruiting power that their football team does.
5. John Beilein, Michigan: Yet another candidate from the Big Ten, which was probably the most-improved conference this season. The Wolverines under Beilein won their first NCAA tournament game in a decade.

Other potential winners include Butler's Brad Stevens, who has carried on Todd Lichlighter's success in the program, and Florida State's Leonard Hamilton, who brought the Seminoles back to the NCAA tournament. While the latter had recruiting success like Self (to a lesser degree), his team also didn't get a single pre-season vote. I had them #10 (!) to start the season so while I wouldn't give the award to Hamilton, he should be considered by the AP because by their standards the team greatly outperformed expectations. And there are many others who could have received the award.

Self did a good job with his team, I won't deny. But I'd rather see coaches who had a tough job going into the season be rewarded rather than those whose situation gives them an advantage. Of all those mentioned above, Anderson fared the best, finishing 5th, while Hamilton received 2 votes and Stevens 1 vote. Choices #2 through #4 in the AP vote were just as uninspired: Jamie Dixon of Pitt, John Calipari of Memphis, and Rick Pitino of Louisville, all of whose teams were highly touted at the start of the season.

Allegations against UConn should spark another easy win

Before any games had been played, I picked UConn to lose in the 2nd round of the NCAA tournament. I figured they'd beat the 16 seed as all 1-seeds have and then, without Jerome Dyson, make an early exit, since their recent play without him had been questionable.

Then Jim Calhoun was briefly hospitalized and missed the opening game. UConn responded with a dominating performance, one of their best of the year. There was clearly something emotional going on here—this team loves their coach. That game—and the fact that BYU didn't advance—made me reconsider having the Huskies fall in the round of 32. In fact, I figured that Calhoun's return would engender the same response as his absence: a powerful victory.

And it did; Connecticut beat the Aggies by 26 points. As John Gasaway pointed out in the Wall Street Journal (what?), UConn's first two tournament games have been the best of any team in the Sweet Sixteen. 

That's fine, I argued, but the party is over. Calhoun is back, no big deal, nothing more to see her. Now, logically, UConn drifts back to their previous level of play. Drained of the emotion that was sustaining them, they were ripe to become upset victims to Purdue in a close game.

As you can see at the bottom of that post, I've changed my mind. Recently Rivals/Yahoo! Sports ran a series of articles about alleged recruiting violations at UConn. And they ran a story which included comments from Calhoun, with the front page headline, "No Answers." That article implied that the allegations could be a distraction to the Huskies.

When Calhoun walked onto the court for shoot-around Wednesday, the mood seemed solemn. The players appeared to mope through drills and the 200 or so fans in attendance, for the most part, sat in silence.

Players moping around during a solemn practice? Sounds like a recipe for an upset, right? So I should stick with Purdue? Not so fast.

As I point out in my updated analysis, this team rallied around their coach twice—when he was hospitalized and when he returned—in a way reminiscent of how Indiana rallied around Kelvin Sampson. In the same way all players rally around a coach that they respect when that coach is embattled in any manner. And by making Calhoun the focus of the story recently, Rivals has ensured that the players will see the allegations as an attack on Calhoun.

Thus UConn looks likely to have its third huge win of the tournament. I think without this development they were in big danger of a letdown and an upset, but I expect to see them facing Memphis in the Elite Eight. How long the emotion from the allegations remains positive is hard to tell; even if the story doesn't gain momentum, the team has to come "down" at some point.

Certainly UConn is a great team but they've been seen at their best recently because of external circumstances; these unusual developments have sparked a team that not long ago was in definite need of a spark. But once inside the Elite Eight they'll need to be at their peak every game, and after all these ups and downs I think they'll find it difficult to sustain.

Stephen Curry scores zero, still the key to Davidson's win

One game I wish I could have seen is Davidson vs. Loyola (MD) Tuesday night, where Stephen Curry—previously the nation's leading scorer—was "held" to zero points on 0-of-3 shooting, but the Wildcats still rolled, winning 78-48.

Curry was double-teamed the entire night, and after a few possessions just stood in the corner and watched as his teammates scored relentlessly with their 4-on-3 advantage.

As exciting as it is to watch Curry take over a game and score 30 or 40 points, I think I would have enjoyed his performance tonight even more. It's a rare and remarkable performance by a player of his caliber to be willing to play this way. How many leading scorers would have felt comfortable doing this?

Even with his lowest scoring total ever, Curry was the key to Davidson's win. The players who carried out the scoring were Bryant Barr (6 of 11 threes) and Andrew Lovedale (20 points), but Curry was still the MVP. Unless you give that to Loyola coach Jimmy Patsos, who stuck with his "triangle and two" even when the "two" became a corner trap of a player who didn't have the ball.

Patsos was the coach involved in a strange incident where an official seemingly bullied him into leaving the coaching area and watching from the stands. I haven't heard what the deal was with that incident, but along with this game, it's certain at the very least that he has an unorthodox style.

The ESPN guys think it's worse that than, calling his strategy "selfish" and lauding Curry for handling the double team in a way similar to how Larry Bird handled a similar double team when he played at Indiana State.

Heat does the right thing, takes Beasley with 2nd pick of 1st round

Michael Beasley was drafted 2nd in the 2008 NBA draft, selected by the Miami Heat as expected. But for the weeks up to the draft, all that could be heard was talk like that in this Yahoo Sports article.

Given the buzz of complaints about Michael Beasley, you'd think the NBA sees only a half-empty glass.

Why don't they instead see the upside?

Here are samples of what's supposedly wrong with him:

“He’s almost always talking, and almost never on time,”

Always talking? Don't they tell players to communicate on the court?

"I don’t want to grow up too fast. I want to live my life...I want to have fun."

Isn't that a great attitude? When you love the game, and have fun playing it, your positive attitute infects your teammates. Isn't that a good thing?

But let's say they're right about Beasley: he's immature. Isn't as serious as he could be about basketball. Now look how good he's become with this lackadaisical attitude.

Now imagine how incredible he could be if he does mature, if his attitude does improve.

When Michael Jordan entered the league people said he was too cocky and disrespectful. Did that hurt him in the long run? Allen Iverson and Latrell Sprewell have done well enough for themselves despite image and behavior problems. All of a sudden being a thug is okay, but taking the men-in-shorts game of basketball less seriously is a cardinal sin?

I recall people criticizing Tiger Woods early on, saying his temper was too volatile and that it was going to hurt his career. This was when he was barely 21 years old and had just won a tournament despite having a temper tantrum and blowing a few shots. What the "experts" ignored is that he STILL won the tournament, despite his temper. And that he had many, many years to mature and work on the temper 'problem'.

Far from demonstrating his weakness, the episode showed how great Woods was capable of becoming. Months later, he won the Masters by the biggest margin in history, and was on his way to becoming one of the game's all-time greats.

If Beasley has problems that interfere with the team, then his older teammates will make sure that he falls into line. No rookie, even if he's the best player on the team, can go against his elder teammates. They will help set the "boundaries" that he's never had. And if he's playing well and helping the team as expected of a high draft pick, where's the problem?

So where IS the problem? It's not visible on-court, where his play was consistently stellar for Kansas State. Whatever issues he has haven't affected his play in over a year.

It's hard to see exactly what these teams are fearing due to his unserious attitude. What is the imaginable worst-case scenario? That he doesn't fit in with the team and has to be traded? His work ethic is lax and he somehow becomes a bust? He demands to perform a mime act at every halftime?

Whatever the potential downside, the upside is so great that any team would have been foolish not to take a chance on him. If Kevin Durant had fallen past #2 because he couldn't bench 200 pounds, that would have been foolish. Likewise dropping Beasley past #2--in some ways, even past #1--because of these concerns, is stupid. Or perhaps these 'concerns' were a ruse, being played up by teams a bit farther down the draft, trying to talk him down a few picks so they could have a chance to get their hands on him.

“He’ll never grow up,” [the source] said. “I doubt Michael is ever going to get it.”

Never? The kid is 19 and already they're certain he will NEVER mature? I'm glad that NBA teams have such genius psychologists as advisors. You know, the same ones that screen the league to so effectively keep all the malcontents and troublemakers out. Oh, wait...

NBA Finals Game 3: Lakers win at home, 87-81

Boston won two in Boston, now the Lakers have won one in L.A., beating the Celtics 87-81 in a sloppy game. Los Angeles should have put away Boston easily with Paul Pierce going 2 for 14 and Kevin Garnett hitting 6 of 21 from the field. But no one other than Kobe Bryant (36 points) and Sasha Vujacic (20) stepped up to make that happen, so the game was closer than it had to be.

As for Boston, two simple things could have put them up 3-0 and in complete control of the series. They were:

• Garnett should have drove inside and dunked the ball. He could have done this almost every time he touched it, but he rarely tried, being content to take long jumpers or pass the ball to Pierce for another miss. People have questioned his heart, but it's his mind that needs to be fixed: he still doesn't realize how dominant he could be, even after all these years in the league, so he settles for humble play rather than taking games over like Kobe does.


• The Celtics should have fouled at the end. Down 6 with a minute left, and Kobe Bryant has the ball. Do you think you're going to stop him? Bryant was struggling from the line, missing seven free throws, a couple of them hitting the front of the rim. Why not foul him, extend the game, and put some worry into the Lakers? Instead they watched time dribble away, and watched Bryant keep the game out of reach. And left Vujacic wide open for his last three pointer. Not a great end of game strategy by Boston.

In general, the Celtics didn't play like they wanted the win very badly, and the Lakers didn't play well enough to deserve it until the end. Now the stage is probably set for a Laker blowout in game 4, now that they have confidence that they can beat Boston. Game 5 is the wild card, but the way the playoffs have gone and the way the refs are calling for the home team, it could easily be 3-2 Lakers after Sunday night. Until someone wins on someone else's home court, neither team has really gained an advantage.

Westbrook's dunk doesn't count - new final score: UCLA 51, Texas A&M 49

Anyone who saw UCLA beat Texas A&M had the same thought: does that last basket count? Russell Westbrook, after UCLA broke up A&M's last effort, went down the court and dunked the ball. The final score was 53 to 49, but apparently after review, they took the basket away.

I had reviewed the play (using March Madness On Demand, where you can scroll back and forth frame by frame) and thought it was too close to call, and since it didn't matter...it didn't matter.

So I thought it was kind of weird that they took it away. Not just because it didn't matter, but because, according to what I gathered from the replays in reviewing it again, the dunk was clearly in the cylinder when the clock went to 0. See the hi-tech animated gif below:

What if the dunk had been for the win? This call would have been scrutinized for years if UCLA was down 1 when the dunk occurred. Of course, if it had come down to that, Westbrook might have taken a different shot. UCLA had no time outs, so they would have had to hurry down the court. He might have tried the dunk if he wasn't aware of the clock. But by taking away the "tomahawk" aspect of the dunk, he would have saved at least a tenth of a second and it would have counted.

Do the review officials require that his hands no longer be in contact with the ball before counting it as a shot? This could be a grey area in the rules: when is a dunk over?

But the real reason they took the dunk away is simple. If you look at the light on the backboard, it was clearly lit up before the dunk. Apparently the official clock and the TV clock were slightly off.

So I guess the moral of the story is, always remember, the backboard light trumps the TV inset clock.

USC's scholarship for Lil' Romeo is wack

When I heard that rapper Lil' Romeo (real name Romeo Miller) had signed a national letter of intent to play basketball at USC, I figured that it meant one of two things. Either,

A) Romeo likely had some skills, since his father, Master P, allegedly had NBA tryouts, or

B) It was a no-lose situation for Tim Floyd, since Romeo wouldn't be taking up a scholarship anyway.

As it turns out, neither of the above is true. Romeo Miller is getting a full-ride scholarship to USC, and as this Wall Street Journal article makes clear, he probably doesn't even have half his father's basketball ability.

The real story in a nutshell, according to the article, is that he's good friends with Demar DeRozan, a true blue chip prospect, and to get DeRozan they need to take Lil' Romeo as well. And give him a full ride, despite he and his father's millions.

Tim Floyd spins it as a shrewd business decision, one that will put more "11 to 17 year-old girls in the stands."

Is he kidding? Romeo hasn't had a hit album or single in five years (maybe he does need that scholarship...), so his fans probably aren't that age. It may create some brief media interest, but considering how little hype Michael Jordan's son is causing at Illinois (and Romeo may play less than he does), I don't see it paying off by this explanation.

The bottom line seems to be that getting DeRozan is worth two scholarships. And that could very well be true.

But it sets a bad precedent. From now on, every blue chip prospect is going to demand a full-ride scholarship for his best friend. Or maybe for his girlfriend. If a scholarship for the second party can be justified in any way, it will be granted to get the prize recruit. Isn't this sort of an NCAA rules loophole?

It already happens some times with a player's coach getting hired on as an assistant. But this goes beyond that; it denies opportunity to a more deserving player, and in this case players who have much greater need for the financial aspect of the scholarship.

Romeo says his play on the court will justify his scholarship. The video to the left displays the skills he thinks he'll be bringing to the Trojans. Maybe he could be halftime entertainment?

The AP Top 25 - why North Carolina could be overrated, Duke should be ahead of Kansas, and Wisconsin gets no respect

As with any rating or ranking system, you can make a lot of arguments about what team should be at what spot, depending a lot on the philosophy of the ranking scheme. Is it supposed to reflect who would win a game between the teams? Or reflect their overall accomplishments for the season? For college basketball in particular, are the rankings supposed to show worthiness (and seed values) for the NCAA tournament?

Clearly, the sportswriters who vote in the Associated Press weekly college basketball poll may fall into any of these categories. So they each have their reason (or, if they're being lazy, lack of reason) for putting teams in the particular order they do. The aggregate is the AP Top 25, and right now, there are a number of teams that are out of place—depending, of course, on how you look at things. Here are some of my observations and questions to ponder about the top ten:

A. The Tar Heels should not be number one. Maybe.

1. North Carolina (27-2)

Does UNC at #1 make sense? The answer is yes, if you think they can beat every other team right now, and that may be true now that Ty Lawson is back. But in terms of accomplishments, it's a little iffy. They've had a farily tough schedule overall, depending on who you listen to (#5 by the RPI, #34 via Sagarin), but one that certainly lacks top-notch teams. In fact, their only wins over Top 25 opponents have been a four point win over #25 Davidson, and two victories over #24 Clemson—both in overtime.

2. Memphis (28-1)
3. UCLA (26-3)
4. Tennessee (26-3)

Any of these three teams has easily accomplished more than North Carolina has this year. Memphis has only one loss, and wins over #11 Georgetown, #13 Connecticut, and #22 Gonzaga. UCLA and Tennessee have three losses, but each has four strong wins over top competition. So really, North Carolina's #1 ranking comes more from it being their turn again in the rankings shuffle, in addition to a belief that they're just playing better basketball than their peers. The North Carolina nameplate doesn't hurt, either. :)

All of this mean North Carolina is probably not overrated, just maybe overranked.

B. Duke should definitely be ahead of Kansas.

5. Kansas (26-3)
6. Duke (25-3)

A 58-point rout notwithstanding (and that was after the polls were out), Kansas hasn't played many tough teams this year, and is 0-1 vs. the Top 25. Sure, they're impressive against middle-of-the-pack teams, but they're largely untested against the best. They split with Kansas State, the next best team they've played.

Duke on the other hand has a slew of conquests: #10 Wisconsin, #21 Marquette, #24 Clemson, #25 Davidson, and biggest of all, #1 North Carolina. So Kansas has beaten basically no one, and Duke has defeated the #1 team on the road. Yet Kansas is ranked ahead. This one I don't get; there's a limit to how often you can say a team is playing the best ball when they haven't beaten anyone. I think that more than anything, Duke is being devalued because people think that their no-center scheme is eventually going to collapse on them. And because voters don't really review records as much as they should.

C. There are three easy arguments for placing Wisconsin at #7.

7. Stanford (24-4)
8. Xavier (25-4)
9. Texas (24-5)
10. Wisconsin (24-4)

They are: 1) Wisconsin beat Texas in Austin. 2) They've played a much tougher schedule than Xavier, and beat Indiana twice to trump the Musketeers' best win. And 3) they've beaten many more quality opponents than Stanford. The Cardinal have two wins over Washington State; Wisconsin beat Texas and Michigan State in addition to the Indiana victories.

Also, 4) their losses are all to Top 25 teams, while Texas, Xavier, and Stanford each have three losses to non-Top 25 foes. Yet for all this Wisconsin is behind all of them. The Badgers are the Rodney Dangerfield of NCAA hoops this season.

What's ahead

Upcoming matchups this week will shake up the top ten, specifically Duke-UNC and UCLA-Stanford. Kansas and Texas may meet in the Big 12 tournament. Wisconsin and Tennessee will be tested in their tourneys as well. Only Xavier and Memphis will go the new few weeks without facing a top 25 foe, which gives them great opportunity to move up, but also harsh consequences if they lose a game.

Arizona fan CAUGHT on camera throwing water bottle at Tim Floyd, USC bench

The Arizona Wildcats lost again at home last night to USC, and fans are getting disgruntled. Some a little more than others; one apparently thought it would be cool to throw a full water bottle at the USC bench, narrowly missing Tim Floyd. Just as stupid as his actions is that he didn't think there'd be a camera—in a televised game—that might catch him in the act.

In the pic above you can see him, arm cocked and starting the throwing motion. Just to the right of the backboard.

The announcers even circled him for easy identification. If you're going to throw things at a game, don't be standing right next to a guy with a huge fake 'fro.

Arizona iCoach Kevin O'Neill took the mike and like Mott the Hoople told the crowd to "bring him down here" so he could kick the kid's ass. No, actually he angrily chastized the action and apologized to Tim Floyd and the USC team.

This comes after fans antics—particularly concerning the student section—have come under fire. A Sports Illustrated article sums up recent problems: Kevin Love getting death threats before the Oregon game, Eric Gordon's family being pelted with ice at Illinois, and extreme taunting of various other players and teams.

The right way to taunt an opposing player: dress up as a mouse.

Additionally, the non-overused tradition of fans rushing the court after a big game has caused concern. Not just for the usual "safety" reasons, either; Arkansas-Pine Bluff fans rushed the court thinking they'd won (not sure why, the game was going into overtime), and got charged with a technical foul. Since regulation was over, the free throws became the first scoring in overtime, and Pine Bluff lost by one point.

It seems inevitable that fan behavior will continue to escalate until someone is hurt, or a player-fan brawl ensues (like one that nearly happened after AUB-Memphis). At that point, teams will crack down on fans and there will be all sorts of overreaction which will take the fun out of student section antics. As always, a few bad apples will spoil the soup for all of us.

Great Day for Tom Davis disciples: Bruce Pearl, Keno Davis coach Tennessee and Drake to big wins

Two protégés of coaching legend Tom Davis scored big upset road wins on Saturday, both using variants of the system he made famous. First, Keno Davis' Drake Bulldogs squad beat the Butler Bulldogs, 71-64; later, of course, Bruce Pearl's Tennessee Volunteers won the Game of the Year at Memphis, stunning the Tigers 66-62 and almost certainly taking over the #1 ranking in the country.

Davis, known as "Dr. Tom", coached at Lafayette, Boston College, Stanford, and Iowa, then returned to coach Drake until last year. He developed a system known, appropriately enough, as the "Davis system" which is based on a full court press, very frequent substitution, a running style, and results in generally high scoring games. His better teams would go on frequent runs that could put an opponent away for good, or overcome almost any deficit the team found itself in.

At Iowa in 1987, the Hawkeyes started 18-0 and reached #1 after overcoming a 22-point deficit and beating Illinois in overtime. In a 10-day stretch, Iowa beat the Illini (who were undefeated at the time themselves) on the road, Purdue in West Lafayette, and Indiana at home. All three teams were ranked in the top ten at the time.

That Iowa team reached the Elite Eight before losing to UNLV, a game in which they held a 15-point halftime lead. Their roster, of course, included future NBA players B.J. Armstrong, Kevin Gamble, and Brad Lohaus among others. In all, Davis' Iowa teams went to nine NCAA tournaments, and along with his two trips with Boston College he went 11-0 in first round NCAA games. Bruce Pearl was an assistant to Tom Davis at Boston College, Stanford, and Iowa. 

Later at Drake, Davis' tenure began at a time when the Missouri Valley Conference was becoming one of the toughest in the nation, and the Bulldogs' recent years included some of their worst teams ever. Despite this, he led Drake to their first winning record in 20 years, and set up the success of his son, Keno, who took over the program.

Both Pearl and Keno Davis took Tom Davis' system, updated and modified it to their liking, and have had great success with it. Pearl, after the Dean Thomas 'scandal', coached at Division II Southern Indiana for nine years, winning a national championship; he then took Wisconsin-Milwaukee to the Sweet Sixteen; then went on to his current success at Tennessee. In his first year Keno Davis has coached Drake to their best season since the late 60s, when the Bulldogs made three NCAA appearances including a 3rd place finish.

Just yesterday, both coaches scored the biggest victories of their careers. Pearl's Tennessee squad will be ranked #1 for the first time in school history. Keno Davis' Drake Bulldogs beat a top ten opponent for the first time in 25 years. Both of these major victories came on the road, in pressure-filled situations where coaching is of added importance.

Tom Davis has to feel good about yesterday's events. Davis always handled himself well; he could correctly be described as the "anti-Bobby Knight." Polite and respectful in interviews and never angry at press conferences, the term "class act" was used many times to describe Davis. Perhaps most tellingly, when he was unceremoniously dumped by Iowa in the late 90s (passively, by not renewing his contract), Davis was asked about the circumstances repeatedly but said he would address the matter only when the season was over. And when the season was over, a year in which Iowa made the Sweet Sixteen, Tom Davis never did deliver the criticisms many were expecting.

Ironically, though he contrasts with Bobby Knight in demeanor, their later coaching years had several similarities. Both were let go against their will from the schools where they had coached the longest, Iowa and Indiana, around the turn of the century; both had a brief "retirement" period before returning to coaching at Drake and Texas Tech respectively; both brought new enthusiasm and more winning to their new programs before retiring again recently, Davis at the end of last season, Knight just a few weeks ago; and both left the teams in the care of their sons as head coach.

While Davis never had the NCAA championships Knight had, his coaching system lives on via Pearl and Keno Davis. As yesterday's results indicate, it wouldn't be surprising if the Davis System eventually yields a national champion.

AP top 25 discrepancies: Notre Dame-Baylor, Mississippi-Vanderbilt

I don't often complain about the AP Top 25 basketball rankings the way I do about the college football top 25, simply because head-to-head games aren't as definitive in basketball; with more games and home-and-away series, losses are taken for granted in basketball and overall performance tends to be of higher priority understandably.

So I don't think it's wrong to have Texas ahead of Texas A&M even when both have four losses and A&M just beat the Longhorns by 16; after all, Texas has three wins over AP top 25 teams to the Aggies' one, losses to tougher teams, and a much harder overall schedule.

A bit more confusing but still understandable is the AP having Pitt at #21 while Dayton is not on the list. Dayton, you'll recall, beat Pittsburgh by 25 points only about a month ago. Both teams have five losses. Pittsburgh does have two wins over top ten teams, a very important consideration. At the same time, they have two losses to teams with losing records. Pitt's tougher schedule—along with a healthy dose of Big Six conference bias—gives them the nod in the AP's eyes over the team that beat them handily. It's questionable how many voters recall that Dayton beat Pitt in the first place; others may feel the win is no longer significant.

But there are two positionings that I feel can't be justified. The first is having Notre Dame in the rankings while Baylor falls out this week. Baylor's sin? Losing to #12 Texas. (And, in reality, just being Baylor, who isn't supposed to be good at basketball). The Bears have four losses, just like Notre Dame; they beat Notre Dame earlier this year on a neutral court; they also beat #18 Texas A&M on the road. Notre Dame, meanwhile, has victories over Connecticut and Kansas State, teams with 5 losses (who are both, interestingly, ahead of the Irish). So Baylor has the same number of top 25 wins, won in head-to-head competition, and on top of that Notre Dame lost by 19 and 26 points to Georgetown and Marquette while Baylor has kept all their games close. Baylor fell to #32, 10 spots behind the Irish.

Even worse is the ranking of three SEC teams: Florida and Mississippi fall out of the AP top 25 while Vanderbilt remains in at #23. All three teams have four losses; Vanderbilt lost to both Florida and Mississippi, by 22 and 16 points. Mississippi beat both the other teams. That makes a logical pecking order pretty easy: Mississippi, Florida, Vanderbilt. The AP disagrees. Vanderbilt has lost four of its last six games, but they're the team out of the three that stays in? Strange, to say the least. The fact that Vanderbilt was #19 last week, while Florida was #20 and Mississippi #24 shows how much the rankings are a product of last week's (questionable) ordering as they are of any attempt at logic and critical thinking.

When will we see the "Total Tournament"?

With 64 + 1 teams playing in the NCAA tournament, 32 teams in the post-season NIT, and another 16 in the newly-announces College Basketball Invitational (CBI) tournament, that makes 113 teams eligible for post-season play.

Only 63 teams feel good about their selection, though. Two bear the ignomity of having to "play in" to the big dance, only to face certain death from a #1 seed. Another 32 think they should have made the big dance. No word yet on how the other 16 feel about it. Probably that they should have made the NIT.

The truth is that some of the teams that make the NCAA are worse than the teams that will make the CBI. Some are below average teams, meaning they'd rank lower than 170th in the nation.

If we're going to go though all this, why not just seed everyone and include all 341 teams in the tournament? A bracket of 256 is only 2 games removed from a bracket of 64. Throw in the necessary play-in round of 85 games (teams seeded #172 through #341 would play to cull the field to 256) and that's just a total of one more week of action: two days to go from 341 to 256, two days to 128, and two more days to 64.

That would be a LOT of basketball. But it would be a hell of an interesting mess. Can you imagine trying to fill out brackets for that?