Texas Basketball: Don't Hate The Dancer, Hate The Dance
Two weeks ago I failed in vain to start a debate about what kind of expectations Longhorns fans should realistically have for Rick Barnes and the Texas Basketball Team to win it all this year or any year for that matter. I wrote the piece because I was frustrated by the prospect of what seemed like another collapse by the Horns down the stretch this season, the overall ephemeral nature of college basketball teams and the haunting suspicion that the Road To The Final Four was actually a Sysaphean pursuit in disguise.
Unfortunately, I received little in the way of assistance in setting my expectations and even worse, the thread following the post devolved into a pissing match between the "U-T Party," who used the post as an excuse to grind their "Fire Rick Barnes" axe, and the "B-Ball Tories," who gave the Barnes haters the finger and me a patronizing pat on the head...
"...when this season wraps up I'll address 54b's post." (Let the record also show that PB also sent me an email asking me why I was scared of awesome.)
And after everyone except J'Co Brown gave up offense for Lent and UT was counted out of the Big Dance, true to his word, a sullen yet defiant PB finally stopped rocking back and forth in a dimly lit opium den long enough to provide a very well written summation of the season and an even more compelling case for not only keeping Barnes, but giving Rick a hug and a trophy for pissing excellence.
As I read the post it finally donned on me that it wasn't really Barnes who was on trial, it was college basketball. And the more skillfully Counselor Bean exonerated Barnes, the more he condemned college basketball in my unwashed eyes.
The following paragraph from PB's post, as he promised, did indeed recalibrate my expectations for Longhorns Basketball while at the same rendering the rest of his summation and future outlook moot...
(I, um, sort of added some color commentary to let you know what I was realtime thinking while reading it...enjoy.)
"Still, for those of you who don't quite get it (Talk to me, brother), let me be direct (Say my name, bitch): Replacing Rick Barnes doesn't make sense (Testify!). Look around and recalibrate your understanding and expectations (Better check yo self before you unrec yo self). The best team in the country this year, Ohio State, lost in the Sweet 16 (No tattoo for you!). The preseason favorite to win it all, Duke, got slaughtered in the Sweet 16 (Mark that under who gives a shit). Kansas had a path of 16, 8, 12, and 11 seeds to the Final Four. They're at home (Oh-oh, Dorothy tapped the Ruby Slippers early). The recently popular replacement candidate Jay Wright? (Sexual chocolate!) Was lucky to make the tournament and went home after one game (If lovin' the Lord is wrong, I don't want to be Jay Wright). One seed Pittsburgh? Out early once again (probably on parole). Jim Boeheim? Missed the tournament two out of the last three years ("He wasn't ashamed to admit to me where he got syphilis"), and didn't make the second weekend this time around (Sounds like it's contagious)."
So if I recalculate my expectations and don't forget to carry the "won," what PB is saying is that while there's no denying the prowess of your coach and and talent on your team is necessary to succeed in college b-ball, it's still only crucial to a certain extent since winning it all or even making the Final 4 depends heavily on a favorable draw, getting hot at the right time and luck.
Probably put a few extra words in his mouth and I may well be too enamored with college football to see the beauty of college basketball, but it seems absolutely asinine to me that the coaches, players and especially the diehard fans would invest this much time and effort into a sport whose champion is more or less decided by serendipity. Winning it all in college football is no walk in the park either, but at least there's logic in running the gauntlet of unforeseen and uncontrollable factors in the regular season instead of the post.
Put another way, in deference to me, college b-ball is like throwing shit against a wall year after year to see if it sticks. And you'll get no argument from me that few coaches toss it better than Barnes. So let me very clear to all of you regardless of your preference for leaving the Barnes door open, "I, 54B, AGREE THAT WE ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE RICK BARNES AND WOULD NOT ADVOCATE HIS DISMISSAL."
None the less and because I, like, love analogies, the problem for guys like me who view b-ball thru the football prism still lies with the setting of or lack of expectations and knowing where to stand at the crap shoot. Watching shit tossed against a wall from a safe distance is fun and whether it sticks or not doesn't matter that much because it's purely entertainment and I'm not that emotionally invested. But when it's your shit and your wall and you're standing right next to it, sooner or later you'd like to see the shit stick at least once to make having to withstand the smell worth it.
Right about now many of you are saying when is this guy going to wake up and smell what he's shovelin? And you'd be right. That's the nature of college b-ball, accept it for what it is or gladly shut the f up.
But if indeed the b-ball post season is that precarious, I can't help but wonder why people spend so much time defending Barnes? Seems moot. If all you need is a coach that can get you to the Big Dance on a regular basis with a decent seed, Barnes is pretty damn good at it.
I also can't help but be reminded of the many comments and posts since BON's inception expressing frustration over the lack of appreciation for college b-ball at UT and the casual, cavalier attitude many UT fans have towards the sport.
So to those b-ball apologists, I say why don't you spend less time making a case for Rick Barnes and more time making a convincing argument to invest in basketball the emotional equivalent to what the majority of UT fans have invested in football.
Honestly, I don't think you can make that case. I don't think you have the balls. Because no matter how much you tell us about how all that was missing on this team was a stellar PG and just wait for Myck Kabongo and TT might stay if the dollar loses value in Canada and how Rick Barnes is a changed man who's willing to part his hair on the other side and stop cussing and learn the pick and roll...it doesn't change the fact that the championship will always be decided via a tournament that favors the fortunate instead of the bold.
And while you can certainly deflect by making the argument (and I'm sure you will) that winning the National Championship in College Football can be just as precarious and susceptible to uncontrollable factors (hello BCS) as winning it all in all in college b-ball, at least we college football fans know that should the Longhorns manage to run the regular season gauntlet unscathed and be so fortunate as to earn a berth in the title game, there's no chance in hell the team ranked 44th at the conclusion of the regular season is going to join them there.
39 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm still laughing. Good kicker.
VCU just turned your damn socks inside out.
Great piece, 54b.
Wonderful angle on the March tourney. Total divestment.
Winning
The outcome of BB is less controllable than that of football, but I wouldn’t go so far as saying it’s all that random. But okay, let’s suppose it’s like throwing spaghetti at a wall. Barnes is the master who finds and gathers the ingredients. He needs a better chef who can take those ingredients and make the best spaghetti (or use shit in the analogy, if you prefer ;) The two of them also need to learn/use some new techniques for throwing. And the closer we can stand for the contest, the more likely the spaghetti will stick, much less even hit the wall.
So at least there are a few things which we can control in order to maximize our chances of winning the shit-throwing contest.
Better spaghetti ingredients. Better shit. Rick Barnes.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
by HookTech on Apr 1, 2011 9:52 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I guess it should be...
Better ingedients. Better shit. Texas Basketball.
I’d make a terrible ad exec.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
by HookTech on Apr 1, 2011 12:18 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Just had to say.
1. Your an excellent writer.
2. Your probably an attorney. If not, you should be.
3. I like your view on general expectations regarding the NCAA tourney. I only wish to note/question- Do you feel like certain schools in basketball are given better chances to succeed in the tourney due to factors including; favorable seeding, location/region “selected” for, or just general favoritism for being a “basketball” school? (currently relevant: i.e.: Duke, North Carolina, Florida, Kansas)(not: Indiana,etc.) Also, how do these potential signs of favoritism translate iduringfootball season for “football schools?”
To be honest, I love football-Texas Longhorn Football, but I don’t want to be a “football” school. I wanna be a football, baseball, basketball school. We’ve got two of those under our belt. Now we need to focus on goal-oriented basketball accomplishments and focus on winning a conference tourney every so often. Let the chips fall where they may in the NCAAs.
Thanks again for the read.
"I asked Darrell Royal, the coach of the Texas Longhorns, why he didn’t recruit me and he said: "Well, Walt, we took a look at you and you weren’t any good.
- Walt Garrison
by 512 on Apr 1, 2011 2:16 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Answers
1) Thank you
2) Not an attorney, much more dangerous – ad exec
3) Bias is always going to be a factor when humans are involved in selecting the match-ups whether it be Selection Sunday or voting in the BCS. Signs of preferential treatment pervade both sports and admittedly, b-ball probably does a better job of mitigating that bias with the tourney. The nouveau riche schools in b-ball have a better chance of breaking the glass ceiling than the non-pedigreed schools in football. But I’d rather see that glass ceiling broken in football where it’d be considered far less of a whim.
And I too would love to see the expectations we have for all UT sports be similar to those we have for football…even if they’re unrealistic :)
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
by 54b on Apr 1, 2011 6:21 AM CDT up reply actions
I couldn't have said it better 54
Rick Barnes does put a team on the floor every year that is capable of winning championships. He does recruit well. I just think people question his coaching skills and what the past teams would’ve done with a better X’s and O’s coach. The problem is if you get a better X’s and O’s coach, you probably won’t have the same talent unless you get a big time coach.
I enjoy reading you stuff 54.
Casual admirer
Went to the 2006 World Cup in Germany and really got into it…I pay attention to what the US Team is doing even in non-qualifying matches (nice tie against Messi’s Argentina the other day)
But truthfully, I’m probably more enthralled by the atmosphere surrounding soccer than the actual game itself.
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
by 54b on Apr 1, 2011 8:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Well, the question was actually tongue-in-cheek...
…but I tend to agree. I kinda “got it” during the last World Cup when I found myself watching matches that the US wasn’t even involved in. The emotional release after a long-anticipated goal (yeah yeah…that’s what she said) makes for great sports.
I was really trying to goad you into a “..and as bad as college basketball is, don’t even get me STARTED on soccer!” kinda thing. Fail.
We're going to play like we're in a bad mood.
Goad away
But I like college b-ball, I like the Dance, I always fill out a bracket, I revel in it…I’m just not going make the same emotional investment in it as I do football.
I love the Longhorns and support the burnt orange in all sports…but it’s hard to live and die with it when the ultimate goal seems so beyond our coach and team’s control.
As usual, I probably need to reconsider my priorities. Maybe I should just enjoy the sport for what it is and smile knowing one of these days, the shit will stick and Barnes will have his magic run. But I’m still way too immature to do that, even at 37.
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
by 54b on Apr 1, 2011 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Oh, to be 37...
I hear ya. Question though… How much of this outlook is because teams like Butler and VCU, and earlier George Mason, make it so far in the tournament? Is it just good luck that these teams make it, or is it good basketball? (Or is there a who-gives-a-crap difference?)
I think your main point is relevant however. Put another way, there’s a difference between getting through a tournament and getting through a season. Sprint vs. marathon discussion probably. The months-long season is only a ticket to entry for the tournament. Is that right? It seems to be right in all other sports save Div I football…including pro sports.
Anyway, you’re correct in that it’s likely just a matter of preference. I was friggin’ pissed at the Arizona game, but I’m FORTY-seven and ended up laughing at myself for investing so much emotion in 20 year-old kids…again. Oh well, viva la vida…
We're going to play like we're in a bad mood.
No, I was asking these questions two weeks ago before the tourney started...
Because as far as I could tell, based on the team in place and the chemistry, this was as good as it gets for Texas. It’s not like you can say, just wait til next year because there never is a next year in college basketball, each team is drastically different than the one before it…think about next year’s team with no TT, Hamilton, GJ, and Dogus. It’s a completely different team. What will be your expectations going into the year…how can they be any different than they were going into this year?
Maybe they’ll be better, maybe worse, but when do we ever get to plant a flag and say, I expect us to really contend this year instead of, toss it against the wall, see if it sticks. And then when it doesn’t, we’re told, well that’s just the nature of the tourney, suck it.
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
Soccer same as hoops
Every one of the World Cup games I saw was decided either by a fluke or a horrible call. If a total crapshoot like that is the most popular sport, then maybe NCAA basketball also deserves its popularity.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
Great analysis, 54b
Extrapolating from your argument, the problem would be helped if they greatly shrank the “Big Dance” rather than expanding it. Start with 16 teams, or start with 8 and pattern it after the College World Series, where one loss doesn’t eliminate you. It would make the regular season more meaningful, and as you point out, a top team wouldn’t have to prove themselves again against a #44 team who suddenly got hot. But this will never happen for economic and political reasons. By the way, there is a hilarious video on “The Onion” where the NCAA tournament has been expanded to something like 1084 teams (to include barber colleges and truck driving schools, etc).
"Only angry people win football games." --DKR
No question in my mind that College Baseball crowns the most legit champion of all the major sports
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
by 54b on Apr 1, 2011 8:44 AM CDT up reply actions
I take that back, English Premiere League is the probably crowns the most legit champion
20 teams, all play each other twice, home and away, wins count as 3 points, ties as 1. Team with the most points at conclusion of season is champion.
Only knock on that league is it’s like Major League Baseball in that the disparity in payrolls between the top and bottom teams is significant enough to provide the top teams with a significant competitive advantage over the course of a 38-game season.
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
by 54b on Apr 1, 2011 8:54 AM CDT up reply actions
Nice write up, 54b
I second your opinion about the Premier League; regular season is all important, but I get the sense that U.S. audiences demand closure that the EPL may not always bring. I certainly agree though, the point structure and double round robin can’t be beat. The super clubs’ (Man United, Chelsea, Arsenal, etc.) financial advantage is a different matter, but I think the championship structure of the league is rock solid.
I like the NCAA Baseball tournament far better than the Big Dance, but I still think there’s too much of a fluke factor. Yes, there are more hurdles to navigate throughout the course of the tournament, but teams that had mediocre regular seasons can still catch fire in early June and ride the wave all the way to Omaha (Fresno State 2008). I do like that the top 8 seeds can play at home for the 2 rounds prior to the CWS, but a few good arms and hot bats at the right time can still make up for an average regular season.
So, however unpopular this may be, this leads me to my favorite way of determining a champion (to me, a champion is the team that had the best overall season, postseason included; others may have different definitions of “champion”, but this is mine) here in the U.S. : the BCS. No, it does not serve the Plucky Underdog very well, but I think it does the best job year-to-year of giving us the team that accomplished the most during the season at the end of the year.There, I said it. But I’m not a witch, I swear.
by Sweed4Heisman on Apr 1, 2011 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions
I don’t think it’s this so much…
I get the sense that U.S. audiences demand closure that the EPL may not always bring
…as is the fact that the realities of scheduling for “our” sports means that a pure, home-and-home round robin schedule is impossible. It wouldlead to too many games for the NFL and not enough for the other sports. (I suppose it is possible on a double home-and-home for the NBA and NHL, but that would still leave too few regilar season games, I think.)
Theoretically speaking, if the NFL champion were based solely on regular season performance, and the title came down to the last day, and all the games were going off at the same time . . . man, now that would be just an amazing three to six hours of football…
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 1, 2011 10:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Fair enough
I didn’t mean to suggest that I wanted “our” sports to employ double round robin, I totally agree that it would be impossible to schedule it given the number of games in each of our sports’ seasons.
My main beef with our sports is the importance that’s taken away from the regular season and placed on playoffs. The NBA/NHL playoff series model is nice, but I think they include far too many teams. An 82 game regular season should tell us which teams have had the best season. Take 2, 4 at the most, teams from each conference and let them duke it out in the playoffs. What’s the point of those 82 games if you include half of the entire league?
As far as the NFL, obviously there can’t be as many games played, but I still don’t like how many teams are included. They all played 16 games of relatively equal schedule strength, so take 2 or maybe only one from each conference and then play it off. Your “all regular season” NFL theory is interesting, but via scheduling quirks, you could miss out on playing the best team from the opposite conference or the next best team in your own conference, so I do think that a small playoff would usually be best.
I understand that there is way too much money to be made off of playoffs. More games equals more dough, and I’m just living in my fantasy-regular-season-purist world, but it’s fun to think about and makes for good discussion.
by Sweed4Heisman on Apr 1, 2011 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions
"What’s the point of those 82 games if you include half of the entire league?"
To eliminate half the league and decide home court advantage and seeding for the other teams?
Rewarding mediocrity
Having 35 bowl games gets hit with this all the time and I don’t get it. Every bowl game but one completely eliminates your chances of winning the championship. The 7-9 Seattle Seahawks were given the same shot that the seven other 3 through 6 seeds were given to win the Super Bowl. Every sport provides a long regular season prior to the postseason. During the course of that long season, the mediocre teams like the Seahawks showed that they were not championship material, so why should they be given a chance to go on a short burst at the end and be titled champions?
by Sweed4Heisman on Apr 1, 2011 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I have no problem with rewarding the team with the 8th best record a slim chance of winning a series at the team with the best record.
They have disadvantages (having to play on the road at the team with the best record), but they showed they were in the top half of the league and now get a chance to prove they are better than their record.
Doesn't a long season
prove that they’re exactly as good as their record says they are?
by Sweed4Heisman on Apr 1, 2011 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Any season proves they are exactly as good as their record says they are.
But things happen, even in long seasons. The difference between the 3 seed and the 7 seed is not always more than a few games. There are a lot of reasons why a team may be five games better than their record suggests at the end of the seasons (such as injuries or trades).
Fresno State thanks you for that
Remember that Fresno State was the functional equivalent of a no-higher-than 13 seed winning the basketball tournament.
I will say this about the NCAA tournament: as much as we knock it for not producing a legitimate champion because of all the upsets along the way, the track record of the tournament reveals that a “legitimate” team, based on regular season accomplishments, almost always wins the tournament.
Since Villanova won the tournament as an 8-seed in 1985 in the first year the tournament went to 64 teams, when I suspect that the science behind the seeding was much less precise than it is today, only one team lower than a four-seed has won it all, and that was Kansas way back in 1988 as a 6-seed. In the 22 tournaments which followed, 15 one-seeds, three two-seeds, three three-seeds and a mere one four-seed (Arizona in 1997) have been crowned champions. This year is much more the anomaly in terms of who made the Final Four, yet it still could be (and, in my opinion, probably will be) the 23rd straight tournament in which a top four seed wins it all.
I’d say that’s a pretty good track record for picking a legitimate champion, given that the champion almost always emerges from the top two to three percent of teams from the regular season. No North American professional sport, with the possible exception of the NBA, comes close to matching that.
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 1, 2011 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
Thank you, now we're getting some where
So by that rationale, can we consider Texas a legitimate champion contender when they’re a 3-seed or higher? So is it fair to say that we can expect Rick to get a 3-seed or higher at least once every 3 or 4 years given the resources at his disposal?
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
Given the tournament's history...
…I would say that considering a team to be a legitimate champion contender when they earn a top-three seed is a good standard. Rick has gotten us there four times in 13 years (2003, 2004, 2006, 2008), which would seem to meet your expectations.
by Hopkins Horn on Apr 1, 2011 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Rick's the man.
And I would imagine that once he hopefully wins it all, it’ll make all his previous efforts look even better.
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
by 54b on Apr 2, 2011 7:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Good stat
I really can’t argue against it too much, so I’ll basically echo what I said above. The one- and two-seeds just spent 4 months proving to us that they’re one- and two-seeds. I don’t think that they should be subjected to such a fluky and inclusive postseason as the Big Dance. Even though the top few percentile usually end up on top of the heap, their route to the top of the heap was probably diluted to a certain degree by upsets somewhere else in the bracket.
by Sweed4Heisman on Apr 1, 2011 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Of course under a 1+2 seed theory, Texas would not have come close to making it this year.
It really would have sucked to sit at home watching Florida and San Diego State.
Always a an entertaining read 54b
You have a way of expressing your opinion that makes shit throwing seem like an intercollegiate sport. After experiencing the mess that is OU b-ball this year a coach that recruits well and gets a team consistently into the dance sounds pretty damn good.
"Failed in vain"
Does that mean you tried to fail but inadvertently won?
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
entertaining and thought provoking
I think there’s some benefit to the randomness inherent in the B-Ball tourney. It makes it easier to rationalize failure and talk yourself off of a ledge, as a disappointed fan.
"The only sport that should be cried over is tee ball."
- don't remember who said it, but I like it.
by HookTech on Apr 1, 2011 10:30 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
no playoff is ever going to be perfect
because we could never decide what perfect is. How do we define the champion? How much should regular season success weigh on the playoffs? Should there even be playoffs? Does the sport change our methods? Will the NCAA even allow for a change?
Crowning the most deserving winner is hard. Deciding what makes more money is much easier. Drastically changing their championships is too dangerous for any of these leagues. Any changes they’ve made have been to make more money and even those changes were modifications not overhauls (at least any of the ones I can think of).
Luck and tournaments
If the idea that the “best” team doesn’t win much of the time is a problem for you, then tournament play is pretty tough to take. I don’t have a problem with this personally. I don’t mind that the NCAA champion is not the same as the best team (however you choose to define best). But I also don’t blame anyone else for being frustrated with it.
The NCAA tournament and the MLB playoffs are the culmination of two of my favorite sports. Both are great at generating seemingly random outcomes.
Back to the ephemeral nature of the teams
Heard an interesting commentary on the radio yesterday about how so many of these college b-ball teams, many of whom start a lot of Freshmen, are just figuring out how to gel by the time they get to the tournament. So you’re going to get some 11 seeds playing crazing good because despite they’re .500 record, it’s all clicking now.
Be nobody but yourself in a world that desperately wants you to be like everybody else.
by 54b on Apr 2, 2011 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Suffering succotash
“Sysaphean” and “syphilis” in the same article — bonus points!
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.

by 





























