Blog Meridian: Basketball

Showing posts with label Basketball. Show all posts

Friday, March 28, 2008

Let's hear it for small, highly-selective liberal arts colleges

Surely, someone out there must have picked Davidson not just to be in the Sweet Sixteen, but to beat Wisconsin. Someone must have . . .

Friday, March 21, 2008

In which the Meridian picks through the charred remains of his Tournament Bracket picks

I'll keep this short.

I picked correctly 8 of 16 times for yesterday's games. In addition to Ariel's bracket challenge, I also entered the bracket contest at The New Republic's blog, The Plank, and, you'll be amused to learn, out of 21 participants there, I ranked 21st at the end of the day yesterday. Sad, sad, sad. (One fellow guessed correctly on every single game.) I picked too many upsets to occur on a day when upsets just didn't happen. Baylor was my biggest disappointment all the way around, and not just because of my bracket; sometimes one must offer up gestures of faith, and sometimes, they don't bear fruit.

Today ::knocks on wood-product:: more of my picks look sound to me. But I'm not betting the farm.

After already having chosen the title for this post, Jennifer Warnes' beautiful version of "Joan of Arc," on her recently-rereleased album of Leonard Cohen songs, Famous Blue Raincoat, began playing on my iTunes. So, in full awareness of the serendipity of that fact (listen closely to the lyrics), here you go, for your listening pleasure: "Joan of Arc."

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Final succumbing

To those of you who think you might be (or are) succumbing as well: Let this be a warning . . .

Image found here.

I begin succumbing here; succumbing continues here.

In yesterday's post, I mentioned Luke Winn's "Bracket Math, Part One." Today, I want to draw your attention to Part Two of that series, in which he discusses offensive and defensive efficiency. Short version: teams with big disparities between the two tend not to do well in the tournament. I'm pleased to see that, despite my relative ignorance of college basketball this year, my various picks for the tournament aren't completely out of line with what the data show in these posts.

The Wikipedia page has lots of stats, a list of past champions, etc.

And finally, in what must be the ultimate sign of succumbing short of actually wagering money on all this, I've joined Ariel's Facebook group, "Braggin' Rights Bracket Fight."

Below the fold: my Elite 8, Final 4, and championship picks. I'm afraid at least one regular reader will be disappointed . . .

EAST, 3rd round:

(1) North Carolina vs. (13) Winthrop. In a battle of Carolina schools, my Cinderella's dance ends. North Carolina.
(3) Louisville vs. (2) Tennessee. Tennessee doesn't wilt in big games (except when it played Texas, of course).

4th round:

(1) North Carolina vs. (2) Tennessee. Sorry, Winston. I had to resort to a couple of coin-flips. Really. North Carolina in front of the almost-home crowd in Charlotte. Tennessee won't wilt; it'll lose in a close one.

MIDWEST, 3rd round:

(1) Kansas vs. (5) Clemson. I don't think this is Kansas' year to win it all, but it's also not its year to be denied a Final Four berth. Kansas.
(3) Wisconsin vs. (10) Davidson. I think this Cinderella still has another win in it. No offense to the school I ended up not attending for graduate school. Davidson.

4th round:

(1) Kansas vs. (10) Davidson. As long as the names of schools from the lower half of the bracket don't begin with a "B," Kansas can handle upstarts.

SOUTH, 3rd round:

(1) Memphis vs. (12) Oral Roberts. Memphis won't make it to the Final Four, but they'll win this one.
(3) Stanford vs. (2) Texas. Stanford is one of the Pac-10 teams that unquestionably belongs in the tournament, but here, the Big XII continues its dominance over those teams. Texas.

4th round:

(1) Memphis vs. (2) Texas. Over at Si.com, Grant Wahl calls this one of the great anticipated matchups in all the tournament, and that would be hard to argue against. But: The game will be in Houston. One team shoots free-throws in the 70s; the other, um, doesn't. And most important of all, apart from Texas' unquestioned Goodness: its English department is far superior. The 'Horns in a close one decided at the free-throw line.

WEST, 3rd round:

(1) UCLA vs. (5) Drake. Somehow, I suspect Ben Howland will impress upon his players the importance of guarding the perimeter against Teh Drake. UCLA.
(11) Baylor vs. (7) West Virginia. In my bracket, the Bears have most definitely earned their way to this point. I think they have one more in them. Baylor.

4th round:

(1) UCLA vs. (11) Baylor. Bruins vs. Bears. One school's English department larger and better than the other. A game in Phoenix, considerably closer to Los Angeles than to Waco. UCLA. But Baylor (even if it doesn't make it this far--which, truth be told, it probably won't) has nothing at all to be ashamed of this year; Scott Drew has to receive some consideration for national Coach of the Year.

FINAL FOUR:

(1) North Carolina vs. (1) Kansas. I don't know what Ariel thinks of this possible match-up. Personally speaking as someone who lives in Kansas yet feels no emotional investment in the Jayhawks, I find the still-ongoing "That-liar-Roy-Williams-left-us-like-we're a-foundling-in-a-Dickens-novel" psychodrama more than a little puzzling (and, yes, amusing). So, yeah: while most of the country will watch this game for its entertainment value, for many Kansas fans this game will have a subtext positively (choose one) Oedipal/Shakespearian in its resonances. And I'll be giggling as I think about it. But as to the game itself: Sorry, Kansas, but North Carolina has the better English department.

(2) Texas vs. (1) UCLA. A rematch of a game from early in the season, which Texas won in Los Angeles. UCLA hadn't yet come together as a team then. They have now, by all accounts. But this time, the rematch will be in San Antonio. Texas.

NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP:

(1) North Carolina vs. (2) Texas. Over at Si.com, UCLA is the consensus pick; Ariel has selected Kansas as his champion (but I've already noted that his Jayhawk fixation renders suspect his judgment). Texas is not a frequent choice for the national champion, but--again--San Antonio will be too much like a home game to the 'Horns. Hook 'em!

As someone on CBS last Sunday said, summing up a discussion of who the group liked to be seeded #1 for the tournament, "Eight teams will be seeded #1." And yes, there's some truth to that, it seems to me. But this year in particular, plenty of lower-seeded teams have the potential, in this win-and-go-on, lose-and-go-home format, to bust up a few brackets. It'll be a most interesting tournament.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

More succumbing

Ariel's son, Aidan, stars in his own basketball-instruction video, marketed exclusively to the University of Kansas coaching staff. Image found here.

(Part One of this post is here.)

I know you all have been waiting with bated breath to see my picks for this weekend's Saturday and Sunday picks, so here we go.

First of all, though: I said in Part One that, not having seen many games this season, I don't know a whole lot about the teams this year. So, I read. I always learn much from Si.com's Luke Winn; yesterday's post on his blog, "Bracket Math, Part One," for example, discusses teams who have disparate home-court and away-court records, the idea being that teams who play well away from home would tend to have advantages in tournament environments. But, see also the guiding principles I listed in yesterday's post. Stats help only to a point, which is the cool thing about this tournament. Intangibles, such as who accepted or rejected me to their grad school English programs, Texas' innate Goodness, Baylor's recovery from its program's near-death six years ago, the fact that it's very rare that a school with "State" in its name that goes very far in the tournament, and, well, one's gut all figure into this bracket-making stuff. Heck: at times, it can feel like consulting the I Ching.

Enough preamble. Below the fold are my picks for the Saturday-Sunday games. As with last night's post, numbers in parentheses indicate seeding:

EAST, 2nd round:

(1) North Carolina vs. (8) Indiana. Despite Indiana's wisdom in admitting me to their grad program, Carolina gets the nod here.
(5) Notre Dame vs. (13) Winthrop. Winthrop in a huge upset. It wouldn't be wise to underestimate any of the teams from the Carolinas this year.
(11) St. Joseph's vs. (3) Louisville. I'd picked St. Joe's to beat Oklahoma for another reason apart from OU's being overrated: a good friend of mine from Rice teaches there. In this case, though, sentimentality goes out the window. Louisville.
(7) Butler vs. (2) Tennessee. As team-oriented as Butler is, the Vols just have too many hosses.

MIDWEST, 2nd round:

(1) Kansas vs. (9) Kent State. Kansas. See what I said above about schools with "State" in their name; apply, rinse, repeat. Especially when the opponent is the Jayhawks.
(5) Clemson vs. (13) Siena. Much as I would like to pick Siena here, Clemson's play in the ACC this year is too much to argue against.
(6) USC vs. (3) Wisconsin. Of the schools that accepted me into their grad programs in my senior year of college, Wisconsin is where I would have gone.
(10) Davidson vs. (2) Georgetown. Davidson (one of those Carolina schools) in the upset.

SOUTH, 2nd round:

(1) Memphis vs. (8) Mississippi State. This is a game Memphis could potentially lose if it's close (Memphis' team free-throw percentage is barely over 50%), but I'll go ahead and pick Memphis anyway.
(12) Temple vs. (13) Oral Roberts. Having beaten Pittsburgh, another Eastern team won't intimidate ORU.
(11) Kentucky vs. (3) Stanford. Go with the school with the better English department--the Cardinal.
(10) St. Mary's vs. (2) Texas. See the rules above. Also, Texas played St. Mary's earlier this season and beat them.

WEST, 2nd round:

(1) UCLA vs. (8) BYU. The Bruins shouldn't have trouble here.
(5) Drake vs. (4) Connecticut. It'll seem like an upset because of UConn's tradition, but when Drake's combination of patient, team-oriented play and deadly perimeter shooting should prevail here.
(11) Baylor vs. (3) Xavier. Baylor is a scrappy team. If this is at all close, I like their chances.
(7) West Virginia vs. (2) Duke. The Mountaineers put Duke out of our misery.

So, then: Here are my Sweet 16 picks:

East: North Carolina, Winthrop, Louisville, Tennessee.
Midwest: Kansas, Clemson, Wisconsin, Davidson.
South: Memphis, Oral Roberts, Stanford, Texas.
West: UCLA, Drake, Baylor, West Virginia.

Tomorrow, I'll post my picks for the Elite 8 and Final Four.

In which the Meridian sucumbs to March Madness

"Duke sucks! Duke sucks!--That is all/Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Image found here.

I see that my bloggy friend Ariel over at Bittersweet Life has surrendered his blog just about completely over to NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament blogging and is fearlessly posting all his predictions for the tournament (if you're interested, go here to see his picks). If he'd just get over that nasty case of Kansas Jayhawk-fixation, I could refer my basketball-obsessed reader(s) over to his place with full confidence. Alas, I must withhold that full confidence, seeing as I feel fairly certain he has his Jayhawks winning the tournament (as of this post, he's not yet revealed his entire bracket). Some day, either he or his brother will remove the log from his eye. But, that caveat aside, Ariel knows his stuff.

I don't, though. I've been a bit detached from college basketball this season for various reasons; but you know, when did knowing little or nothing about something keep a blogger from posting on something? Below the fold, then, my choices for the Thursday and Friday games (Saturday and Sunday picks to come tomorrow):

I have three guiding principles regarding my rooting interests, one of which you see proudly and loudly declared in the image for this post, the other of which is that Texas is always Good. (Side note: my other bloggy friend, Randall of Musings from the Hinterland, gets in touch with his inner lawyer in his list of principles that guide his rooting interests. This is fun to read, even if you could otherwise care less about this sort of thing.). The third is, When the other two principles don't come into play, root for the school with the better English department. Alas, when filling out a bracket, one must on occasion put aside rooting principles if one wants to produce a halfway-plausible bracket. But some other principles come into play, the chief one being that, below the #1 and #2 seeds this year, there is considerable parity among the teams in the tournament. Thus, as you'll see, I have more than a few lower seeds advancing to the Sweet Sixteen. But: thus far, a #16 has never beaten a #1, and that won't happen this year, either; also, only twice has a #15 beaten a #2.

Numbers in parentheses denote seedings.

Here we go:

EAST, 1st round:

(1) North Carolina vs. (16) Mt. St. Mary's/Coppin State. Tarheels may break a sweat.
(8) Indiana vs. (9) Arkansas. The Hoosiers accepted me to their grad program in English.
(5) Notre Dame vs. (12) George Mason. The Irish are too big for the Patriots.
(4) Washington State vs. (13) Winthrop. Winthrop, in my first upset pick.
(6) Oklahoma vs. (11) St. Joseph's. Oklahoma is overrated; the Eagles in another upset that really isn't one.
(3) Louisville vs. (14) Boise State. The Cardinals seem like the safe pick here.
(7)Butler vs. (10) South Alabama. A toss-up, really, but I'll go with Butler here.
(2) Tennessee vs. (15) American. The conventional wisdom is that a 2 seed is too low for the Vols . . . though I won't embarrass anyone here by naming the ONE TEAM that has beaten 2 of the #1 seeds and Tennessee as well. Anyway. This may be the Vols' year, which will please my friend Winston.

MIDWEST, 1st round:

(1) Kansas vs. (16) Portland State. Of course, it may be Kansas' year, too.
(8) UNLV vs. (9) Kent State. Kent State in a mild upset.
(5) Clemson vs. (12) Villanova. Clemson looks solid this year.
(4) Vanderbilt vs. (13) Siena. Despite having a fine English department, Vandy's poor road record bodes ill for them. Siena in the upset.
(6) USC vs. (11) Kansas State. USC has been the more consistent team.
(3) Wisconsin vs. (14) Cal State-Fullerton. Wisconsin also accepted me to their grad program in English. See how easy this is?
(7) Gonzaga vs. (10) Davidson. Davidson, in another upset that really won't be.
(2)Georgetown vs. (15) UMBC. Georgetown, some say, is seeded too high but should win this one.

SOUTH, 1st round:

(1) Memphis vs. (16) Texas-Arlington. Both play uptempo, but Memphis will win this one.
(8) Mississippi State vs. (9) Oregon. Mississippi State should handle the Ducks.
(5) Michigan State vs. (12) Temple. Though MSU beat Texas early in the season, they have played inconsistently. Besides: Temple has a pretty good English department.
(4) Pittsburgh vs. (13) Oral Roberts. ORU in the upset.
(6) Marquette vs. (11) Kentucky. Kentucky is finally playing decent basketball.
(3) Stanford vs. (14) Cornell. Two excellent English departments . . . what to do? Stanford is the safer pick here.
(7) Miami (FL) vs. (10) St. Mary's. The Gaels blow away the Hurricanes in the upset.
(2)Texas vs. (15) Austin Peay. Were y'all paying attention earlier? Texas. Duh.

WEST, 1st round:

(1) UCLA vs. (16) Miss. Valley State. UCLA.
(8) BYU vs. (9) Texas A&M. If the team that beat Texas shows up, then the Aggies. But then again, the team that lost to Kansas by 51 might show up, too . . .
(5) Drake vs. Western Kentucky. Teh Drake is really good.
(4) Connecticut vs. (13) San Diego. UCONN in this round.
(6) Purdue vs. (11) Baylor. Baylor won't win this tournament, but they are my sentimental pick, seeing as they have emerged as quickly as they have from the hell of having a team member murdered and a coach lying about the circumstances surrounding the player's death so as to cover up his own illegal activities. The Bears just might win this one.
(3) Xavier vs. (14) Georgia. As scrappy as Georgia has proven to be (4 games in 3 days to win the SEC tournament--the only way they were going to play anywhere this post-season), Xavier is the stronger team. But then again, Georgia literally wasn't supposed to be here, either.
(7) West Virginia vs. (10) Arizona. No Pittsnogle this year, but WVU will beat an Arizona team in disarray.
(2)Duke vs. (15) Belmont. Duke will win this one, it pains me to admit, but I predict an early exit from the tournament for them.

Here are my picks for the Sweet Sixteen.

Tuesday, March 16, 2004

Finally!

First Sunday, then Sunday night . . . and now here it is early Tuesday morning and I have a moment to post an entry. More comments on Flemish painting and the NCAA tournament follow.

Last first. I don't wager; I won't fill out a bracket sheet. But I WILL watch as much as my schedule will allow. I understand the Super Bowl's now-iconic status as THE sporting event of the year in this country, creating on that one day and in one place a kind of worship of football and commercials, but March Madness is exact opposite: stadiums across the country, schools from every region, a mix of large and small, public and private, perennials (traditional basketball powers) and annuals ("Cinderellas" and first-timers) ALL pitted against each other for half a month. It's not as definitive a method as pro basketball's and pro (and college) baseball's tournaments for determining a true national champion, and therein lies the madness. The pressure to make EVERY shot, especially in close games, is that much higher. March Madness is also that time when the powers MUST play the mid-majors. They bow to the will of the Eternal Watchmakers known as the Bracket Committee. St. Joseph's, the rap against them being that they "didn't play anybody" in the course of their undefeated regular season, now must play somebody. Thus, there's a kind of democracy at work in the tournament that other playoffs, wars of attrition that they are, don't have. In those, the powerful tend to win out over time--witness ALL those trips to the World Series the Yankees have made.
Hmm--"democracy" in the NCAAs? Maybe more like Survivor, in which the strong--or at least the upper rungs of the seedings--win their games and wait for the inevitable upsets of other of their fellow higher-seedings--those who are not upset then prey on the upsetters, and, by Elite Eight time, few, if any, teams are left who have been seeded lower than, say, 8th (Villanova as an 8 seed back in 197-something [I'm working from memory here] is the lowest seed to reach a championship game). So, then: the illusion of democracy? The masses, Roman Coliseum-like, are kept happy with spectacle and the idea that competition is going on in that they are fed a few upsets in the first weekend, while, AWAY from the upsets, the real tournament, the usual assertions of their strength by college basketball's usual suspects, is getting itself worked out. Boy--THAT's rather Spenserian. But you know something? In this column, Sports Illustrated writer Stewart Mandel argues that the 5/8 scholarship rule (no more than 5 scholarships in a year or 8 in two consecutive years) has begun to manifest itself as parity: the wealth of basketball talent is now more diffuse. There are still the Power Conferences, and they still receive inordinate advantages in terms of ranking, but (as evidenced by the Atlantic 10's and the Western Athletic Conference's three bids each AND the Missouri Valley's 2 bids (compare to the Big 10's and the Pac-10's 3 bids each)), that former center of gravity is shifting. For the better, I say.
And who will win everything? Mandel says the logical choice is Stanford, and I agree that Stanford is the best of the teams I've seen (but note the qualifiers, those last two words). But he also says that anything can happen this year, and I also agree with that--this year more than ever.

On to painting . . .
Susan and I are still engaged in a dialogue about those beautiful Flemish interiors. In a previous entry, I said that she went to the National Gallery to look at their superb collection of Flemish and Dutch paintings from the 16th century; she wrote back to say that what struck her with real force was their physical size: these are small paintings. They are sized for intimate spaces. And that's appropriate: she told me something I hadn't known before: that as part of the fallout from the Reformation, the Dutch at about mid-century greatly restricted the amount of religious art that could appear in churches. Artists turned to private buyers in order to make a living, and so their subject matter reflected the lives of the members of that market (see, as only one example, this painting by de Hooch). So: there's a kind of Marxist reading of the Flemish interiors. But what makes these paintings so extraordinary to Susan and me is how, despite their size, they seem so expansive in their feel (what I called (and she liked) their "psychic spaces"). They accomplish this feel in several ways: the intimate feel of these admittedly ordinary scenes--indeed, as though something spiritual, if not overtly religious, is occurring (Vermeer at his very best--for example, Woman Reading a Letter--is especially good at this); the wonderful detail with which clothing, furniture, walls are rendered--the eye gets lost in its wanderings amongst all that richness, thus heightening the illusion of a physical expansiveness; and finally, the open doors/windows themselves: they not only permit us the illusion of "going out" of the painting, they also appear to invite others in that "outside" space within the world of the painting to peer in, if not enter in. I wrote her yesterday to say that these small paintings actually feel like landscapes, and she seems to agree with that idea.
Hmm--a brainstorm: I had noted to Susan that Vermeer is different, that, even in a room full of similar paintings by his contemporaries in the Vermeer exhibit at the Met in May of 2001, his stand out, not because of his skill but because of the atmosphere: his paintings, with only two exceptions, do not depict doors/windows open to an outside that we can see--and in those instances, being outside is the point of the paintings: A View of Delft and The Little Street. Vermeer is a converted Catholic in a country swept up in Reformation fervor. Maybe, for him, it's better, safer, to keep the doors and windows closed, so to speak. He loves light, though--his figures always turn toward its source, like plants.
Maybe.
I defer to Susan here--the stuff about Vermeer is me pushing at a hunch at an early hour and not something I know (or even believe) definitively. But Vermeer IS different, a Shakespeare in a world of Jonsons and Marlowes. His sensibility is different. Why?
Stay tuned . . .