+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: AAC Conference Talk (/forum-409.html)
+---- Thread: Andy Katz Article (/thread-560671.html)
Andy Katz Article - HtownOrange - 03-12-2012 08:41 AM
I'm not a big fan of Andy Katz, but he had a few quotes I liked in his article:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/7674847/taking-early-look-ncaa-tournament-storylines-college-basketball
• So much of the talk was about Kentucky's bracket being difficult, but I viewed Syracuse's as more challenging with two hot conference champs from Sunday in the bracket in Vanderbilt (SEC) and Florida State (ACC), as well as a possible No. 1 in No. 2 Ohio State.
• I still can't get used to saying second-round instead of first round.
• It's strange to see the Big East with nine teams in the field, and two of them aren't named Pitt and Villanova.
• Georgetown is the type of team that could either get beat by Belmont in the first round or get to the Elite Eight based on the lower part of the Midwest bracket.
• For all the pounding we put on South Florida's schedule and lack of quality Big East wins, Stan Heath deserves a ton of credit for getting this team to the NCAA tournament. The Bulls made themselves relevant and in the ever-changing Big East that's a huge step forward.
Commentary:
Quote 1: Katz has bought into the hype over the hot conference tourney team Both Vandy and FSU deserve kudos for their performance and both can be winners in the Dance, Yet neither has shown the high level of consistency to go very far in the Dance. The SEC is light this year in depth and the ACC isn't much better. This is not a slam on the teams, but rather a "wait and see, I'm not convinced yet," position.
Quote 2: ABSOLUTELY! I still call them play-in games. If you see my posts and the rounds don't match up, please forgive me. (I've already predicted a UCOnn win over Kentucky in "Round 2" which is really "Round 3")
Quote 3: Unbelievable. No Pitt. No Nova. 9 teams dancing.
Quote 4: Jeckyll/Hyde syndrome. I agree with Katz on this assessment.
Quote 5: Kudos to the Bulls and a fine performance in the toughest conference. Glad others recognize this.
RE: Andy Katz Article - Cubanbull - 03-12-2012 08:55 AM
The part that got me from him and other writers was that they kept piling on USF for lack of quality wins, when the reality was that USF went 2-9 vs top 50. That was better than many schools like Cal,BYU,Iona,NCST and just as good as Virginia. We won 6 vs top 100 which was better than Texas,Iona and Byu. They harped about USF beating the lower standings Big East teams but failed to mention that those teams beat schools like Seton Hall and UConn
RE: Andy Katz Article - HtownOrange - 03-12-2012 09:03 AM
(03-12-2012 08:55 AM)Cubanbull Wrote: The part that got me from him and other writers was that they kept piling on USF for lack of quality wins, when the reality was that USF went 2-9 vs top 50. That was better than many schools like Cal,BYU,Iona,NCST and just as good as Virginia. We won 6 vs top 100 which was better than Texas,Iona and Byu. They harped about USF beating the lower standings Big East teams but failed to mention that those teams beat schools like Seton Hall and UConn
Writers do not care about truth in any reporting spectrum. They only care about controversy. They only use the analysis that fits their agenda at that moment - much like politicians, which probably explains why they have about the same level of respect as politicians do. There are some good ones, but mostly, reporters are hacks.
RE: Andy Katz Article - bitcruncher - 03-12-2012 09:08 AM
All writers are looking for is an audience, Carlos. If nobody reads 'em, what good are they?
RE: Andy Katz Article - KnightLight - 03-12-2012 09:38 AM
(03-12-2012 08:41 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: • I still can't get used to saying second-round instead of first round.
Simple: Don't do it.
Teams/Coaches (even their agents) thought it would be better if 64 of them could say they "reached" the 2nd round of the NCAA tourn each and every year (another bonus $$$ level for some)....sounds much better than 1st round (loser for 32 of them).
Just like how the NCAA tried to be politically correct when they changed the term Div I-AA to Football Championship SubDivision or FCS.
It's still I-AA....just like the First Round really takes place on THURSDAY...and the play-in games are just that...play-in games.
RE: Andy Katz Article - KnightLight - 03-12-2012 09:41 AM
(03-12-2012 09:03 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:(03-12-2012 08:55 AM)Cubanbull Wrote: The part that got me from him and other writers was that they kept piling on USF for lack of quality wins, when the reality was that USF went 2-9 vs top 50. That was better than many schools like Cal,BYU,Iona,NCST and just as good as Virginia. We won 6 vs top 100 which was better than Texas,Iona and Byu. They harped about USF beating the lower standings Big East teams but failed to mention that those teams beat schools like Seton Hall and UConn
Writers do not care about truth in any reporting spectrum. They only care about controversy. They only use the analysis that fits their agenda at that moment - much like politicians, which probably explains why they have about the same level of respect as politicians do. There are some good ones, but mostly, reporters are hacks.
I wouldn't go that far...the "truth" that he pointed out that USF did have just 2 Top 50 wins...now one could write pages and pages of what other teams did...and what teams they beat or didn't beat...but each and every article...the writer normally chooses which stats to put in and which stats to leave out...because if nothing was ever left out, each piece would be War & Peace.
RE: Andy Katz Article - Frank the Tank - 03-12-2012 09:54 AM
(03-12-2012 09:38 AM)KnightLight Wrote:(03-12-2012 08:41 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: • I still can't get used to saying second-round instead of first round.
Simple: Don't do it.
Teams/Coaches (even their agents) thought it would be better if 64 of them could say they "reached" the 2nd round of the NCAA tourn each and every year....sounds much better than 1st round (loser for 32 of them).
Just like how the NCAA tried to be politically correct when they changed the term Div I-AA to Football Championship SubDivision or FCS.
It's still I-AA....just like the First Round really takes place on THURSDAY...and the play-in games are just that...play-in games.
I totally agree. The NCAA seems to love taking simple concepts that everyone understands and then make wacky convoluted changes that confuse the general public. Remember when they tried naming the regions after where the regional finals were located (e.g. the "Chicago Region") as opposed to simply using East/West/Midwest/South? They finally figured out that the idea blew chunks and reverted. I hope they'll do the same here, but I doubt it since they probably don't want to suggest there's some type of stigma to being in the "play-in game". "Play-in game" suggests that you're not actually part of the NCAA Tournament and are playing an extra game to make it, whereas calling it "First Round" makes it sound like you've made it to the Big Dance and it sounds better for the TV networks, too. I personally hate that the real first round is now called the second round, but I understand why they're doing it.
RE: Andy Katz Article - johnbragg - 03-12-2012 10:13 AM
(03-12-2012 09:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:(03-12-2012 09:38 AM)KnightLight Wrote:(03-12-2012 08:41 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: • I still can't get used to saying second-round instead of first round.
Simple: Don't do it.
Teams/Coaches (even their agents) thought it would be better if 64 of them could say they "reached" the 2nd round of the NCAA tourn each and every year....sounds much better than 1st round (loser for 32 of them).
Just like how the NCAA tried to be politically correct when they changed the term Div I-AA to Football Championship SubDivision or FCS.
It's still I-AA....just like the First Round really takes place on THURSDAY...and the play-in games are just that...play-in games.
I totally agree. The NCAA seems to love taking simple concepts that everyone understands and then make wacky convoluted changes that confuse the general public. Remember when they tried naming the regions after where the regional finals were located (e.g. the "Chicago Region") as opposed to simply using East/West/Midwest/South? They finally figured out that the idea blew chunks and reverted. I hope they'll do the same here, but I doubt it since they probably don't want to suggest there's some type of stigma to being in the "play-in game". "Play-in game" suggests that you're not actually part of the NCAA Tournament and are playing an extra game to make it, whereas calling it "First Round" makes it sound like you've made it to the Big Dance and it sounds better for the TV networks, too. I personally hate that the real first round is now called the second round, but I understand why they're doing it.
Y'know, from a marketing standpoint, "Play-in Game" isn't too bad. These teams are playing this game to achieve their goal, to get into the (real) tournament. Put that homeless guy with the Luther Vandross voice in front of a mike, give him a few bullet points about each team, and you have a TV product. These were the last teams on the bubble, they get no respect, they're playing as much against RPI as against their opponents, etc. And VCU, VCU, VCU.
Callling it the First Round--I don't even think it works as marketing. For most teams in the tournament, if they made the tournament, it was an okay to very good year. The next benchmark is the Sweet Sixteen anyway.
RE: Andy Katz Article - CalallenStang - 03-12-2012 10:26 AM
(03-12-2012 08:41 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: • It's strange to see the Big East with nine teams in the field, and two of them aren't named Pitt and Villanova.
Actually, all nine of them aren't named "Pitt and Villanova"
RE: Andy Katz Article - HtownOrange - 03-12-2012 10:35 AM
(03-12-2012 10:26 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:(03-12-2012 08:41 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: • It's strange to see the Big East with nine teams in the field, and two of them aren't named Pitt and Villanova.
Actually, all nine of them aren't named "Pitt and Villanova"
I agree with your point, it was Katz' quote taken from his article.
RE: Andy Katz Article - CalallenStang - 03-12-2012 10:39 AM
(03-12-2012 10:35 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:(03-12-2012 10:26 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:(03-12-2012 08:41 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: • It's strange to see the Big East with nine teams in the field, and two of them aren't named Pitt and Villanova.
Actually, all nine of them aren't named "Pitt and Villanova"
I agree with your point, it was Katz' quote taken from his article.
I know...I just found Katz' wording too odd not to comment on.
RE: Andy Katz Article - CyberBull - 03-12-2012 11:04 AM
(03-12-2012 09:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: All writers are looking for is an audience, Carlos. If nobody reads 'em, what good are they?...aren't you a former sports writer?
RE: Andy Katz Article - usffan - 03-12-2012 11:12 AM
(03-12-2012 08:55 AM)Cubanbull Wrote: The part that got me from him and other writers was that they kept piling on USF for lack of quality wins, when the reality was that USF went 2-9 vs top 50. That was better than many schools like Cal,BYU,Iona,NCST and just as good as Virginia. We won 6 vs top 100 which was better than Texas,Iona and Byu. They harped about USF beating the lower standings Big East teams but failed to mention that those teams beat schools like Seton Hall and UConn
I think part of the reason is that most reporters root for "stories," and it would have been an easy story to mention how a team tied for 4th place in the Big East with 12 wins got left out of the tournament, showed that the Big East wasn't as strong as it once was, etc.
In this particular instance, though, Katz once said on ESPN (and wrote on the website) that Seth Greenberg had taken USF as far as they could be taken. Now Stan Heath has shown that that was wrong. Funny, Seth couldn't manage to get the Bulls in the tournament once while he was here, but his predecessor Bobby Paschal did and now Stan Heath did. The Seth apologists immediately point out that Seth didn't get to coach USF in the Big East. But he did coach us in a strong Conference USA that included Louisville, Cincinnnati and Marquette, and Paschal got us into the tournament as an at-large in the Metro. You can't have it both ways. Plus, he's only managed to get Virginia Tech in the tourney despite 9 years of being in the Big East/ACC.
It's a great day to be a Bull! \m/
USFFan
RE: Andy Katz Article - quo vadis - 03-12-2012 12:41 PM
IMO, Kentucky did indeed get the overall toughest draw, which is unusual for the tournament #1 seed.
If seeds hold, they have to face an extremely dangerous UConn team in just the second round, then Duke in the regional final. That means beating two of the three best coaches of the past 40 years to make the Final 4.
Brutal.
RE: Andy Katz Article - gosports1 - 03-12-2012 07:45 PM
(03-12-2012 10:26 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:(03-12-2012 08:41 AM)HtownOrange Wrote: • It's strange to see the Big East with nine teams in the field, and two of them aren't named Pitt and Villanova.
Actually, all nine of them aren't named "Pitt and Villanova"
Journalism at its best. Way to master the English language Katz!
RE: Andy Katz Article - bitcruncher - 03-12-2012 08:11 PM
(03-12-2012 11:04 AM)CyberBull Wrote:That was my father. I was editor of my school paper, and didn't cover sports...(03-12-2012 09:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: All writers are looking for is an audience, Carlos. If nobody reads 'em, what good are they?...aren't you a former sports writer?
RE: Andy Katz Article - HtownOrange - 03-12-2012 08:46 PM
(03-12-2012 08:11 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:(03-12-2012 11:04 AM)CyberBull Wrote:That was my father. I was editor of my school paper, and didn't cover sports...(03-12-2012 09:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: All writers are looking for is an audience, Carlos. If nobody reads 'em, what good are they?...aren't you a former sports writer?
If you hadn't learned proper English, you could have been making the big bucks with Andy Katz!
RE: Andy Katz Article - bitcruncher - 03-13-2012 09:47 AM
There is no gravity...
RE: Andy Katz Article - bearcatmark - 03-13-2012 09:54 AM
(03-12-2012 12:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote: IMO, Kentucky did indeed get the overall toughest draw, which is unusual for the tournament #1 seed.
If seeds hold, they have to face an extremely dangerous UConn team in just the second round, then Duke in the regional final. That means beating two of the three best coaches of the past 40 years to make the Final 4.
Brutal.
I thought UK got the overall easiest draw for a #1 seed, with Syracuse getting the toughest. Yea UConn can be dangerous, but they lost 10 games in the Big East for a reason. I'd say Memphis is a more dangerous team for that "3rd round" game.
Indiana lost their starting pg for the year, and Duke is the weakest 2 seed in my opinion.
Look at Syracuse who is in a bracket with the SEC tournament champ, an always dangerous Wisconsin team. The ACC tournament champ (who beat UNC and DUke twice each), a team that was top 5 most the year (Ohio State), and a team that just beat them (Cincinnati). That bracket is a murderer's row.
Michigan state draws the best 8/9 seed, and probably most underrated team in the tournament (Memphis). They have a 30 win Missouri team in their bracket (only 30 win team from a BCS conference not to get a 1 seed...ever), A dangerous, athletic Marquette team, as well as the Big East tournament champion cardinals, who if the refs keep the foul calls to a minimum are a complete beast to play against. This is also a very tough bracket.