For those of you that come here for Marquette coverage

Late last night I said to myself, "Vinnie, you know what I could go for right now? A huge annoyance. It's been a while since I intentionally levied a big pile of irritation on you. Why don't we click over to Cracked Sidewalks and check out some postgame reaction to the MU loss."

And of course, I listened to the manipulative bastard. What I read in the comments section of the postgame thread was exactly what I expected--boorish critics with a delusional sense of entitlement coming out of the woodwork to bash Crean, bash the players, and second-guess.

I decided to leave a comment, which I figured I'd repost here--partly because it turned out longer than a lot of our posts. And since we post so little as it is, I'd hate to have any of my precious few sports-related words not appear on this blog.

But mostly, I wanted to post it as a pre-emptive rebuttal to any of the Crean-bashers / player-bashers that might show up here. (The first part, actually, is a direct rebuttal to people who criticized Crean/Burke for letting Lopez get too easy of a shot on the last play.) And even if you're not a Marquette fan, I think the comment makes a point that's relevant to a lot of college basketball fanbases. So here it is:

Ummm... Since when is anyone's "favorite spot on the floor" falling out of bounds toward the baseline and shooting from behind the plane of the backboard? And apparently, some of you were too busy proofreading your list of Tom Crean grievances to catch Burke forcing Lopez into a couple wild fallaway jumpers late in the game. Going by the reactions here, I'd have guessed Lopez shot 90% from the field if I hadn't watched the game.

Was I baffled and frustrated by Jerel's threeball at the end of regulation? Of course. But he's also the biggest reason we had a chance to win there. Also consider a) it was a pretty good look, b) it eliminates the chance for a buzzer heave to beat us, and c) we'd been offensive rebounding very well, so a putback off a long rebound was a plausible outcome. And of course, if the shot drops, we're all running the streets kissing strangers and clicking our heels instead of criticizing the decision.

That's not to say I entirely condone the threeball, nor the fact that we chucked up 29 others, but I also like to think that they treated us to a phenomenal game and a tremendously entertaining and successful style of ball all year. (The Georgetown game was the best live game atmosphere I've ever been a part of, and if that counts for nothing in your mind, you should stop watching sports.) Honestly--Why can't it ever just be, "The circumstances didn't pan out as I hoped, and I'm sad over the outcome." Why does someone always have to be blamed? Not everything in life is someone's "fault." It's ok to admit you're sad over something you can't control. Go have a good cry or play with your dog or whatever it is you need to do. But don't get all hostile toward Tom Crean or toward whomever else on the team because it's unfair to them, and it's bad for your health.

And guess what--You know how many teams appear in the Final Four each year? That's right--four. But I don't know... Maybe the committee should be, like, "Hey, your school won a championship in the '70s. For that, you get a 1-seed and a free pass to the Final Four each year." In fact, they should do that for all teams with any history of success whatsoever. Especially UTEP. I mean, shit, they had a movie made about their championship team. Every year, we could have 57 teams in the Final Four, all coached by Rick Pitino. They'd play one huge game with 30 basketballs (plus 5 moneyballs) in a six-acre warehouse. There'd still only be two baskets, but you'd have "safety pods" at different spots on the floor, and the team who occupied the most pods when "Pop Goes the Weasel" ends would win. I think then, and only then, would every college fanbase get what they "expect" from their program.

My point being: We should totally fire Crean and bring in Coach K. I'm sure he'd leave Duke in a heartbeat. Plus, he's an awesome game coach. Just look at his last four tournament games. I mean, if we're willing to judge Crean that way, why not Coach K? Wait--he's 1-3 with that only win being a one-point win over Belmont? Well, shit. Fire him too then, and hire Belmont's coach.

Read more...

I'd rather go to the camp with Coach Jay

If the absence of new posts the last few days ruined your weekend, then a) you don't have much going for you and might want to consider joining a monastery and b) we apologize. But the reason none of us posted was that we were holding our quarterly YCS business meeting, during which we convene at YCS headquarters in Milwaukee to revisit our company policies and reflect upon how the previous three months' work has upheld our fundamental pillars of quality, consistency, insight, and overuse of the word "fuck." After much deliberation and thoughtful debate, it was decided: We probably shouldn't say "fuck" so much.

Ok, so maybe we just spent all weekend watching college hoops, playing video games, and bowling. And we may or may not have watched a sizable portion of Hot Shots, Part Deux.

Anyway, right about the time we were all at the Bradley Center watching the officials in the Marquette-Georgetown game completely, indisputably fuck us over (whoopsie), Mike Krzyzewski was over in Raleigh celebrating his 800th college coaching victory. Say what you will about Duke, but it's an amazing accomplishmet--not only due to the longevity and success such a huge win total requires, but also because Coach K's success, all things considered, defies intuitive logic. Honestly--How did this man get where he is? Consider:

• He played and previously coached at Army. Maybe I'm stereotyping, but it's hard to imagine that the nobodies he'd coached and played with in his previous experience had a ton in common with the high-flying PTPer diaper dandies he's gone onto recruit and coach at Duke.
• He's stiff and supposedly not very accessible. Unlike other coaches who are charismatic and awesome, Coach K is a weirdo who seems to take himself too seriously and rarely cracks a smile.
• He's 5'10" and may be a member of the rattus genus. (That is, he looks like a rat. I just wanted to say it like a pretentious nerd.) How did he land such good recruits before the days when the program's reputation sold itself? It's a well-researched fact: To the tall and handsome go the spoils--whether that's a job, a mate, laughs, or public office. You think, "Oh, some college kid deciding where he's gonna play ball doesn't care what the coach looks like." Think again. Looks, to a large extent, dictate success in every aspect of life.
• He has a stupid, impossible-to-spell Polish last name. Again, you doubt that this matters? Wow, you have a lot to learn. It's called "branding," and it matters a ton. As a coach, you're selling your program and you're selling yourself as an individual. I would never buy anything named "Krzyzewski" unless it were pickled herring or something.

Please help me out, fellow hoops fans. How did this man ever become such a successful college basketball coach? Was it simply because he took over an already-successful program and got lucky landing a few nerds like Johnny Dawkins and Jay Bilas who could play well and whose mom and dad wanted their boy to go play for a military gentleman who could pass for the local reverend, and then the program just took on a life of its own?

All I know is if I'm a responsible parent of a top-flight recruit, I'm telling my kid to play for Bruce Pearl. And to bring his little sister with.

Read more...