SB Nation User Blog: everett

Cal wants a new offense

everett — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:10:18 -0000

Cal wants a new offense

Good times.

Boise students get their first taste of big time football.

everett — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:23:11 -0000

Boise students get their first taste of big time football.

And they don't like it.

An argument for 3-3-1.

everett — Sat, 09 May 2009 23:40:35 -0000

The current format for NBA playoff series is 2-2-1-1-1, with the first two games and the final game of a series being played at home by the team with the advantage. No doubt, this format is preferred for at least these two following reasons.

First, this format allows a severe underdog an opportunity to play at least two games at home, where theoretically it will have an opportunity use its home court advantage to steal no less than one game and extend the series. No doubt that is mostly a strategic argument, but there is a strong element of economic motivation there: simply, more games, equals more advertising, equals more revenue all around.

The second argument, related to the first, involves an element of fairness for the visiting franchise as a severe underdog. If a team is facing a sweep, there is a possibility that the franchise would only have the opportunity to play one game at home; they would only sell tickets for one game, and their fans, in many cases, would only have the opportunity to watch one game live. Where this reason involves only the economic loss of a franchise, and not the NBA, I still see it a largely economic stance.

The following is an argument, as the title suggests, for a change to a 3-3-1 Playoff system in the NBA. I will concede here that I have no experience with the financial matters involved, and no league administration experience to base this on, but I am going to make the argument none-the-less; please feel free to pound me into oblivion with your more-informed counter arguments.

An aside.

To begin, there is a side argument that I will address, and then abandon quickly: a 2-3-2 playoff series would possibly address some of the arguments about to be brought up, while simultaneously addressing both of the arguments brought up above. Again, I am not going to spend much time here. I don't like a 2-3-2 system for one reason, and one reason alone: A non-home-court-advantage team should never be given this big an opportunity to win three games at home, and then return to the advantage team's home with two chances at one game elimination. That there is a mouthful, but it is what it is. Feel free to discuss this more below, but that is all I am going to say about it here.

The argument for a 3-3-1

While my argument is not in any way scientific, I am going to use quasi scientific jargon in my argument for a 3-3-1, because it think it makes me sound smarter and adds credibility to my case. I will arrange my argument by the following three factors: The vacuum effect, adjusting for noise, and the law of averages.

First, the vacuum effect.

Hypthetically, if two teams play four games in a vacuum, the better team should win those four games, and thus win the series. To offer the team with the better record (or the tie breaker, or the tie-breaker tie breaker) no home court advantage for those four games is a short sale. Giving the advantage team three games at home, would be a big swing in home court advantage at the front end of a series.

Some will like this, and some will think it is too big. This may be the love it or hate it element of the entire argument for many people. I will say right now, that I love it. If an advantage is going to be had, it should be had by the deserving team, and it should be had in abundance.

Next, adjusting for noise.

The above hypothetical made an assumption based on playing a series in a vacuum. This argument is based on the reality that no sports are played in a vacuum, and there will be unpredictable elements and x-factors in every single series.

The switch to a 3-3-1 format would allow a team (completely neutral and hypothetical here, no reference to any specific team... I promise) to go out on opening night, drop a stunner game 1, and not necessarily lose home court advantage. Two teams which are very evenly matched may be relying on home court advantage more than any other factor in a series. In a 3-3-1 system, home court advantage would neither be won or lost by the more deserving team from a fluke performance. In order to steal home court a team would have to win not one, but two games on the road, making a shift in advantage significantly more than just one bad night by a home team, or one exceptionally good night by a visiting team. It is this last point that brings me to the final part of my argument

Finally, the law of averages.

I would argue that in any three games straight where teams are separated by little other than home court advantage, the home team is likely to win 2 of three. This theory is what my argument is hinged on, and I am not going to base it on any statistical analysis or actual calculation of averages (although I would love it someone had the gumption; any baseball fans out there?), rather it is just based on my own personal common sense. Home court advantage is going to be a major factor in many series, so to lose it so easily before either team has an opportunity to develop a solid game plan makes no sense to me.

Game one is the first time either team will have an opportunity to view one-another's playoff lineups and rotations. The x-factors based on that alone are too numerous too count. This combined with the fact that there will nearly always be at least one significant player on either bench that has little to no playoff basketball experience make this first game so uncertain that the idea that there is any sort of advantage to be had by playing the first game at home is seriously dubious (like I said, this is totally hypothetical). Giving each team the opportunity to play three games straight at home would alleviate many of the possible x-factors that are involved in the shift of advantage.

Further, this theory, if accepted, eliminates the economic issues raised by the status quo side. The likelihood of a team losing three straight games in an opposing team's home court is low enough that only the most serious under-dogs are going to be disadvantaged by this rule. If a team can't win 1 of 3 at an opposing team's home, do they really deserve two games at their own? An argument could be made that if both teams are winning 1 of three on the road, then just as many, if not more, series are going to go to a game seven blockbuster. The possible momentum swings would arguably be even more exciting.

To close, that is my piece, there is a ton of stuff that I didn't mention (less travelling expenses, games closer together), because I simply don't know enough about how those things would really play-out: please discuss below if you have any thoughts on any of that stuff.

Everett

Free Shots at a Dying Horse. (Trade Drawer 1/28)

everett — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:03:28 -0000

We've been through it, and back through it, and then have run over it a couple of times just to be really thorough, but there is still no satisfaction to be felt.

The Threshold arguments as I see them are this:

1. We have plenty of talent, which needs time to develop. We have an opportunity to grow at all positions. The strengths and weaknesses present are balanced to the extent that we could develop as a unit, without trading anyone, and be a legitimate contender in the forthcoming seasons. In other words, stay the course.

2. We are not a contender now, and the development of certain positions has been fully realized, or realized to the extent that a trade would be efficient and prudent. We should look to find either a starter at one of our non-critical positions, or a more substantial backup who could carry some of the load when we are down with injury, or just not in sync. We should move now while we have RLEC, and some of our more questionable (and probably beloved) players are high in potential trade value.

Every morning I log in half expecting to see the breaking news revealing trade talks, or a deal that went down over-night. Yet, every morning all I get is game summary or game previews.

So, what is it?

Will the Blazers make a move, and if so who or what?

What position is most needed.

Is our PG situation satisfactory? should we wait and see if Bayless is going to develop, or should we bring in a vet to carry the wait in the interim?

Is our PF situation satisfactory. LMA has had well documented inside presence issues. Is he our guy, or do we look for a banger, either in front of him or behind?

Is Martell going to come back in March and complete us, or should e be looking for a Teyshaun type dynamite guy at SF?

Discuss:

David Lee wants $10 million

everett — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 05:50:23 -0000

David Lee wants $10 million

McKitish on Blake: Flying Under the Radar

everett — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:25:05 -0000

McKitish on Blake: Flying Under the Radar

Just a little props, but who'da thunk Blake would be a fantasy factor?

Pit Crew (now with 100% less fecal matter)

everett — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:59:53 -0000

Went to the Pit Crew Shirt handout yesterday, and was pleasantly surprised to see that they had arranged it that Bev, and Ernie gave a little speech before they handed the shirts out.

The point of course was this: Be loud, and organized, but don't swear, or toss condom balloons.

I really didn't like the Love situation last year; it was embarrassing, especially after he started woopin' on us. I hope this year is calmer.

Anyone else go? Id be curious to hear about your comments on the actual distribution method.

Game-day Thread?

everett — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:09:38 -0000

This should do until the real one goes out.

Blackout:

Was the blackout thing just a rumor? If they meant to publicize this and make it happen, they failed! Everyone I have talked to this morning ( who doesn't waste hours on sports blogs) said they didn't know anything about it. When Penn State is doing a white out, everyone in the country knows, and it works. So I am a little sad.

Unis:

Excited about the unis.

Arizona:

I have heard spreads from one point to one touchdown. hopefully this is an exciting game. if it is not exciting, we better be up by a million.

J will to get the start?

Buthol report that he is; I trust him (didn't even click on the link).

Masoli:

is going to have a good game, i can feel it. He came out of his shell a little last week, and if he has worked out some of the accuracy bugs, we may be in for a good one.

GO DUCKS!!!!!

Byrd tossed from practice, may be disciplined.

everett — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:46:08 -0000

Byrd tossed from practice, may be disciplined.

Not really sure what happened here. The article says Boyd threw Blount down, and a scuffle started from there. Byrd apparently got out of control and was tossed.

I really hope Bellotti doesn't suspend Byrd.

Men's Basketball -- Ducks 116 Raiders 71

everett — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 00:13:33 -0000

What a difference a week can make.

The Men's Basketball team played the Southern Oregon Raiders tonight in their second and final exhibition game. I didn't know what to think coming in to this game, and had a fair amount of apprehension, one, after the scary performance last week, and, 2, that we were set to play a school that has had "University" status for almost a whole decade, and not just one measly term like NCU. My fears were completely dashed though, when the score was 23-3 about five minutes in to the game. The game never really got closer than that.

The Good

Once again, it was the Freshman who really inspired this week; it could be because our team is predominately made up of Freshman, or it could be that we had some pretty huge gaps in our recruiting classes the past few years. Probably both. Either way, there is going to be a lot of minutes played by the yungins this year, so pray for them. Overall this was a much better week than last; the final score is probably a fairly accurate reflection of the overall tone of the game.

Offensively, the boys seemed way more in rhythm this week. Their plays seemed well orchestrated and competently executed. Our point guard rotation was more effective this week. Players moved off of the ball well for the most part, and were much more often in useful places as opposed to in the way of play development. Screens were getting set at the top of the key, and plays were developing well from there. It almost looked like they had done it before.

Defensively, the Ducks were able to contain much better than last week. SOU was having trouble making anything work (at least in the first half), and their frustration was apparent. more great blocks this week; at one point Catron and Crittle teamed up to send a ball into the crowd: half a block each I suppose.

The Bad

Not a whole lot bad to say about today. Coach Kent is obviously using these exhibition games to test out different player combos and see what is going to work and what is not once we start playing for money, so I wouldn't put too much stock in this stuff. Just some observations:

On offense, player control is probably going to be an issue all season; with the exceptions of TP and Drew Wiley (surprising to me on the latter) no one looked in control the majority of the night. Nearly everyone looked surprised to have the ball in their hands at some point of the game.

On D Oregon looked really bad at times in the second half. Granted, they were up by a fair margin, but still... They didn't execute on several turnover opportunities, which always really burns my cookies. SOU put up a lot of uncontested pull up jumpers, which would be expected if they were a NCAA D1 team, but alas they are an NAIA D2 team. So, not so great here, but it was way better than last week.

Notes

Dorsainvil was suited up, but sat out most of warmups and never moved off of the pine. Injured? Benched?
TP started at the point this week, and was fairly effective there. His downcourt vision appears to be improving, as he played very well in the transition; getting the ball up the court and into open players hands. Additionally he penetrated really well, and was able to keep defenders several feet back. Defensively, I can't help but think that we are in for a long season if Porter can't figure out a way too stick with these scrappy PGs.
Garret Sim was my major positive of the night, as he played a lot of minutes, and passed and shot the ball well. Coach Kent gave him quite a few minutes at the 1, but he really played much more effectively at the 2. Running the Ball, Sim just never showed any quickness or explosiveness, which even my wife noticed.
Voogd, on the other hand, had a really great game at the Point. I am excited about Ben; he moved the ball well, directed plays confidently, and seems really quick. If he can dial his shot in, he is going to be very effective.
With no Dorsainvil, Dunnigan and Crittle got all the Center minutes, and both looked really good this week. Dunnigan got the start, and the majority of the minutes, which was deserved as his play was a lot more polished this week. He lead the team with 18 points, 13 rebounds, and 5 blocks. Crittle had a good game as well, playing tough down low. He has a knack for playing the post, and uses his body well to make points for himself.
Takimoto said last week that Drew Wiley was Luke Jackson 2.0. He really looked it tonight. Drew hit some really composed looking threes, and played excellent both on and off the ball. He's backing up Catron for now, but no reason he can't play the three as well.
Longmire and Dunnigan have been practicing. These two guys had awesome chemistry tonight each hitting the other with no-look passes for momentum points at different times. Longmire was another player that looked transformed on the floor tonight; he played aggressively and smart most of the night.
Humphrey: the only part of tonight's game that was not an improvement over last week's was Humphrey's play. He hit two big threes, but he also missed two lay-ups (one of which was followed by a HUGE dunk by Drew Wiley that garnered the biggest applause of the night). Humphrey probably just had an off-night, but he really looked like he was trying to force things. Until he gets settled he may have a tough time.
Starters: Porter, Humphrey, Longmire, Catron, and Dunnigan