ESPN Men's Col BB Insider 12/17/05

[Duncan&Kidd홧팅]

원래 이게 주말 경기보는 포인트인데, 좀 늦었군요. ^^;;

 

Updated: Dec. 17, 2005

Good guards, bad shooting and worse rules

By Jay Bilas
Special to ESPN Insider

Here are some things to keep in mind as you watch games this weekend ...

Dee Brown is a real "lead" guard
One of the players who has had the biggest adjustment this year has been Illinois' Dee Brown. The diminutive guard who took home every trophy the Big Ten handed out last season has had to go from a score-first mentality to a "lead-first" mentality. He may have started slowly for those with high expectations, but against Oregon, Brown was outstanding. He pinned 26 points and seven assists on the Ducks, and shot 5-for-8 from 3. Brown has an inside game to work with and the Illini are unbeaten after 10 games for the second year in a row. Before the season, I didn't know if Brown had a position. Now, I do. He's a lead guard, and a good one.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a great lead guard.

 

Tired of the "hot seat" talk ... again

I might be crazy, but do people really like all of this talk about coaches on the hot seat? Those in charge of content for TV shows, magazines and newspapers all over the country seem fixated on the subject. Of course, coaches get fired every year, and that will probably never change. But is it news to speculate this early as to which coaches will be out in a given year?

I always read things like "it's fair to wonder" or "one has to believe" when people opine about a coach on the hot seat. What does that mean? If you question a coach's job security enough, sooner or later you'll be right. Heck, people questioned my colleague Steve Lavin at UCLA since Day 1. Of course, he lasted almost 10 years, but the speculators could claim they were right at the very end.

Kudos to them ... that's almost like the guys who annually pick the NCAA Tournament field and say, "I correctly picked 64 of the 65 teams last year!" Heck, they start with 31 already in: the automatic bids. They are really more like 4-for-5, because there are only that many spots that are even arguable. You want to impress? Pick the field a month in advance! I would love to see all of us talking heads and writers held as accountable for what we write and say as coaches and players are for winning and losing. That would be fun to see.

Rajon Rondo is the nation's best defender

Kentucky has not gotten off to a good start, but Rajon Rondo has done pretty well for himself. While Rondo still needs to work on his shot to be a complete player, it is clear to me that he is the best defender in the country. Rondo is averaging better than 15 points, almost 10 rebounds, and over five assists and two steals per game, and he is able to disrupt the game with his athleticism and range as a defender. Go ahead, give the trophy to some shot-blocker who comes over from the weak side. That's fine. But if you want the real best defender, give it to Rondo.

Not only can he defend, but Rondo hits the glass, too.

 

Two gangs that can't shoot straight

Few teams in America have tougher numbers to look at than Princeton and Virginia. Princeton is off to a slow start, which was made worse by a loss to then 1-7 Monmouth by 20 points. The really tough part of that loss was the fact that the Tigers scored only 21 points. That was the lowest output by a Princeton team since 1936 -- just a few years before the advent of the 3-point shot (like, 50). Princeton is shooting an anemic 40 percent from the field, but a respectable 37 percent from 3.

Virginia's numbers make Princeton look like the San Antonio Spurs. The Cavaliers are shooting under 40 percent on the young season, and under 28 percent from 3-point range. If not for their almost 73 percent from the free-throw line, the Cavs couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat.

Both coaches, Joe Scott and Dave Leitao, are good ones. Scott runs Pete Carril's system and does it well. The guy didn't forget how to do it, he just needs some time. Same goes for Leitao, who will get it going at UVa. However, making some shots in the interim sure would make things easier.

He's why big kids leave early

Can someone explain to me why Notre Dame's Torin Francis takes so much grief from his own fans? It seems that Notre Dame's following will not forgive the kid for not being Emeka Okafor. If Francis were at UConn, Notre Dame fans would be saying, "We've got to get us a guy like that!"

The burly Francis has had 25 career double-doubles, and he is averaging a double-double this year. Francis may not be Patrick Ewing, but he is pretty darn good, and he plays hard, plays hurt and rarely is heard to complain. It seems like big guys who stick around for four years take more grief than guards. Francis is a really good college player, and Notre Dame will miss him next year, big time.

Now for some ideas to consider ...

Contrary to the popular belief of many of us loud and bellowing talking heads, college athletics is full of really good people that do really good work. The NCAA has good intentions, and a whole building full of good, smart and dedicated people. The problem is they are hamstrung by a system of rules that do not make sense and, sometimes, defy logic. The NCAA has become too big in places, and has taken on too much responsibility in too many areas. I applaud the NCAA and its people in most instances, but there are several areas in which I believe that significant change is needed:

Make rules sport-specific

Every competitive endeavor needs coherent and reasonable rules and to have those rules enforced fairly and evenly. But, every sport is different, and has very different needs and requirements. Increasingly, NCAA rules make less and less sense in each particular sport, and there are too many rules.

The NCAA needs to have "sport-specific" rules that make practical sense for each specific sport. Football needs to have its own rules, because football has unique circumstances that affect the administration of the game and the players. Similarly, basketball needs to have its own rules. It is patently absurd to have the same rules apply to a field hockey player that apply to a basketball player.

A clear dividing line is revenue. There should be rules for individual revenue-producing sports and for all other non-revenue producing sports. If the NCAA wants to make several different sports live under one umbrella of rules, it should be the non-revenue-producing sports that do so.

The NCAA should form a rules committee that is responsible for promulgating rules for each revenue-producing sport. Men's basketball, which accounts for more than 80 percent of the NCAA's operating budget, should have its own set of rules that makes sense for that sport.

It is a simple concept. There is no need to try and pretend that men's basketball, gymnastics, cross-country and wrestling are on equal footing. They are not, and NCAA rules should reflect that. The men's basketball committee should have the authority to move quickly to promulgate or change rules in the game so that the current needs of the game can be met in a timely fashion, and so that the administration of the game is proactive rather than reactive.

Provide a truly fair system of enforcement

In addition to the NCAA's too-often arcane rules, the NCAA sits as investigator, fact finder, judge, jury and executioner in all cases regarding the enforcement of its rules. No other reputable organization in sports determines for itself the facts, the decisions and the sentences handed down for rule violations. Because of this one-sided nature of NCAA justice, there is little trust of the organization and its rulings.

In addition, member institutions spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend against NCAA investigations, and most member institutions have a staff of compliance officers and lawyers that still cannot figure out the right thing to do in interpreting the NCAA's Byzantine rule structure.

In order for the NCAA to restore confidence in the public and its member institutions, the NCAA must provide a fair and impartial system of enforcement of its rules. It is fine to have investigators. However, it is not acceptable for the NCAA to determine, in its sole discretion, which witnesses are trustworthy and credible and which are not, which facts are to be considered and which facts are to be ignored, or which argument is persuasive and which argument fails. That should be left up to an impartial judge.

If the U.S. Department of Justice has to prove its case before an impartial judge and jury, why shouldn't the NCAA? Since the NCAA doesn't even have to provide witness statements to the member institution it is prosecuting, it is difficult to argue a case in opposition to the NCAA's interpretation of the facts.

The fix is simple. The NCAA and its member institutions need only agree on an independent investigator, which will save an enormous amount of time, effort and money. If the NCAA decides to pursue a case against a member institution, the NCAA and the institution can agree on a panel of independent arbitrators that can decide the case and mete out an appropriate punishment, if any.

There is no reason for the NCAA to have so many investigators on its payroll, and it is silly for institutions to have to hire so many lawyers and investigators to go up against the NCAA enforcement machine. I have heard NCAA officials talk about transparency with regard to dealings with the NBA, but transparency does not seem to be a priority with regard to NCAA enforcement.

Fundamental fairness demands that the NCAA introduce impartiality into the process.

Scholarships should not be used as punishment

We hear a lot about "self imposed" sanctions with regard to NCAA rules violations. Even though some institutions self-impose punishment, it is usually done in consultation with the NCAA and is undertaken to keep the NCAA from coming down even harder.

In many instances, an institution will have its program stripped of scholarships for a period of years. That is silly. There is no reasonable justification to use educational opportunities as currency. If a person in authority abuses a rule, why on earth would an organization committed to education respond by denying educational opportunities for deserving students? What does that accomplish? That is like punishing a hospital by denying medical care to its patients.

If the NCAA wants to strike at the heart of an institution, it should fine an institution for proven violations. Take away a school's money, but not a kid's scholarship. Similarly, taking away recruiting and playing opportunities is not appropriate. There is no reasonable justification for bleeding a program to death over time based upon prior rules violations.

Let's be reasonable regarding the accountability of coaches

How is it that coaches are considered accountable for the off-field behavior of athletes,

including an athlete's performance in the classroom? In what other field is a person held to that level of accountability?

If an athlete fails a class, everyone points directly at the coach. If an athlete commits a crime, everyone points directly at the coach. I am not saying that a coach has no accountability, and cannot be a positive influence on his or her players, but the level of blame laid at the feet of coaches is way out of whack.

When a regular student fails, what is the level of accountability of the professor? Did that professor fail to reach that student, or fail to teach that student what he or she needed in order to be successful in that class? What is the level of accountability of the director of admissions?

Did he or she fail to admit a student that was sufficiently capable? If a finger is ever pointed at those administrators, the answer is that the blame lies with the student, and that student has to accept personal responsibility for his or her failure.

When an athlete fails, what accountability does the director of admissions have? What accountability does the school's president or chancellor have? What accountability does an academic advisor have? The answer: none. When a finger is pointed in their direction, the answer is that the blame lies with the coach for bringing the kid into the school in the first place.

Same goes for players who commit crimes. When a regular student commits a crime, who is held accountable for that crime? A professor? The provost? The dean of student life? The school president? Of course not. While we are falling all over ourselves to blame the coach when an athlete commits a crime, courts are full of cases where regular students have committed similar acts. Look at the docket of any undergraduate judicial board in the country, and it will be filled with cases of alleged misconduct by regular students, and relatively few by athletes.

Coaches are and can be positive influences in the lives of players. However, when a player misbehaves, let's be reasonable about where the blame lies. In most cases, it lies solely with the player himself.

Graduation rates

While we're trying to be reasonable, try this one on for size: Have you ever heard about the graduation rate of a university president? Neither have I. Who is more responsible for graduation, the president or the football coach?

What do you think the reaction would be if we were to tag the graduation rates of the general student body on the résumés of presidents and other university administrators? There would be an incredible number of excuses made, when no such excuses from coaches are allowed.

With the new Academic Progress Rate, you will hear about "valid" or "justifiable reasons" for a student leaving school. What does that mean? Who decides what is a valid reason for a kid to leave school? Is it a money reason? A family reason? A medical reason? What if a kid just doesn't like school? Is the school or the coach responsible for a kid quitting or failing? Please.

If it is acceptable to tag a coach with a graduation rate, it certainly is acceptable and revealing to tag a president with a graduation rate. Let's see the NCAA do that. If we make it about education first, graduation will follow.

Stop Calling Them Student Athletes During Competition

Every year at the NCAA Tournament, the press conferences are filled with references to "student-athletes". The moderator of the press conference says, "We will take some questions for the student-athletes, then for Coach Accountable".

Can we please dispense with the moniker of "student-athlete" during competitions? I was once a "student-athlete," but I was not always the multitasker that name implies. When I was in class or studying, I was a student. When I was playing, I was a player. It is OK to refer to a kid as a player when he or she is actually in uniform and playing.

There is no such thing as a student-musician, a student-cheerleader, a student-thespian or a student-fraternity brother. Apparently, there is no duality to a regular student, but there is for an athlete. Have you ever heard a child at a game come back to his parents and say, "Mom! Dad! I just got some autographs from the student-athletes!"

It is OK to be a player when in uniform. Let's let the kids be players when in competition.

Jay Bilas, a college basketball analyst for ESPN, is a regular contributor to Insider.

[Placebo effect]

론도의 맹활약으로 UK가 루이빌을 잡았죠. 올시즌 론도의 성장세는 정말 주목할만 하죠. 개인적으론 올해 론도가 SEC-Player of the Year를 먹을거 같다는...

[팀하더웨이]

어쩌면 글렌 데이비스가-.-;;

[지노짱!]

론도 기다려라!!그린이 간다~~

[shooting]

론도 만세~

[R.Miller 31]

론도 잘하면 quadraple double도 가능한 선수죠(스틸까지 말이에요). 근데 뛰어난 수비에 비해 공격력(특히 슈팅)이 너무 떨어지는것 같습니다만... 전국구의 선수임에는 의심의 여지가 없지만 전 론도가 엄청난 선수라고는 생각하지 않습니다.