ValueforRent's Blog

Waving Goodbye to Cinderella, the End of March Madness as you’ve known it: Long Winded Theory

By ValueforRent | View all Posts
Posted Friday, March 27, 2009 02:43 PM   32 comments

Following an exceedingly frustrating week in the NCAA Tournament (AKA a square’s dream) I have attempted to reflect on the causes of my failures.  I’ve picked twenty-one games so far, and gotten only about seven of them right.  I do not like losing at all.  Even though it’s inevitable, I still hate when it happens.  When I lose though, I like to know the reasons why I’m losing.  Afterwards, I try to better understand what I did wrong, why it happened and maybe what I can do next time in order to make a better decision and possibly eliminate a bad play in the future.  It’s all about learning from your mistakes.  I don’t always do this, but I try to.  This is how you get better.  Improvement does not come from following Covers hot capper of the week.  You yourself have to be willing to sit down and honestly examine the problem so you can attempt to remedy it.

 

Part of my lack of success so far is simply me not knowing a lot of these teams nearly as well as I should.  I focus mainly on the NBA, so I haven’t seen a lot of these teams play more than once or twice if at all.  However that’s no excuse, losers are still losers.  Enough about me though, I don’t think anybody gives a shit that I’m losing.  I don’t really give a f*ck when other people lose, so I would expect they’d extend the same courtesy to me when I falter.

 

Here is the real point of why I’m writing this though.  After reflecting and analyzing how the tournament has played out so far, I’ve had one major epiphany.  The reason there has been such an overabundance of chalk so far this year, in addition to last year, can be attributed to one major factor.   The number one thing I have gleaned from watching games in the tournament thus far is that team athleticism is the number one determinant in who will win.  That could change in coming games as the teams appear to be on more equal footing, however in first three rounds, athleticism was king.  Here’s a list of games I selected to validate this viewpoint:

 

BYU (-2.5)/Texas A&M – Texas A&M won by 13

ASU/ Syracuse (-2.5) – Syracuse won by 11

Xavier (-4)/ Wisconsin – Xavier won by 11

Villanova (-2)/ UCLA- Villanova won by 20

Duke (-2)/ Villanova- Villanova won by 23

Butler pk/ LSU – LSU won by 4

Arizona (+1)/ Utah- Arizona won by 13

Arizona (-3)/ Cleveland State – Arizona won by 14

Oklahoma (-6.5/7)/ Michegan- Oklahoma won by 10

Memphis (-10)/ Maryland- Memphis won by 19

USC (-2)/ Boston College- USC won by 17

Texas (-4.5)/ Minnesota- Texas won by 14

 

If you look at the winning teams, the common denominator between all of them would appear to be superior athleticism in comparison to the opposition.  I’m sure I’m missing out on a few here, but it seemed like every game in this tournament with a relatively short line, the more athletic team ended up winning and covering virtually every single time.  Most of these games haven’t even been remotely close either as indicated above; Vegas have been way off on their numbers.  These haven’t struck me as the sort of games where

Report Abuse
 
32 comments
comment Post A Comment
ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 02:43PM

I was thinking afterwards, “well I lost but it could have easily gone the other way had the ball bounced differently”.  NO, if you took any of these teams you just had the wrong side PERIOD.  I’m not trying to be a dick when I say this as I had more than a few of these teams that lost.  That is just the fact of the matter.  If they played most of these games a hundred times, I’m fairly convinced the more athletic teams would still win a very high percentage of the time.  Tournament games have very true results so to speak.  What I mean by that is you’re playing on a neutral floor and the players are all playing to the best of their abilities.  Every team wants to win just as bad as their opponents; you can’t really say one team is more motivated than the other.  They’re all leaving it out on the floor so to speak.  So with that being said, I don’t know what else to think other than these teams who won are just flat out better by a very large margin, plain and simple.  What else do you have to go on?  The similarities are too obviously to ignore.  

 

The bigger, faster, stronger, quicker team has used their raw physical abilities and tools to simply overwhelm the opposition over the course of the game.  I know it sounds simplistic, but the better team of athletes is winning out.  I do not know how many times I’ve been burned so far taking a team because as I put it, “they’re smart, well-coached, play within themselves, make their free-throws and shoot tremendously from beyond the arc.  There’s your recipe for an upset”.  But even when these teams followed the aforementioned criteria for beating a more talented team, (cough…. Arizona State….cough…. cough) it still wasn’t nearly good enough.  I’m not sure ASU could win that game against Syracuse even on their best day.  The talent and athletic disparity is seemingly too big to overcome.  TALENT IS WINNING OUT IN THE TOURNAMENT.  I don’t know any other way of putting it.  If your team has it, you will win and advance.  If you don’t, start packing your bags because you’re headed for home. 

 

Even compared to say ten years ago, to me today’s college players are noticeably more athletic, skilled, bigger and faster on the whole.  It truly is ridiculous seeing some of these eighteen and nineteen year-old kids who are jacked as shit and already possess the bodies of grown men.  I know this sounds racist, but many of these teams with superior athletes are predominantly black.  In any game thus far where one team has had a bunch of white dudes out there versus a team of mostly brothers, the brothers have won most of the games.  That’s just a fact.  They’re better athletes.  As one of my friends who does not follow basketball much once joked about the game: “the blacker you are the better you are”.  He could be right.  I don’t think there’s been any game in the tournament so far that’s been more emblematic of the athletic disparity I’m talking about than last night’s Duke/Villanova game.  That match-up typified exactly what has been happening when one team holds over the other in regard’s to better athleticism.  Villanova had better athletes on the court, that’s why they won.  By the end of the game those Duke players didn’t even look like they wanted to touch the ball.  In any measure of athletic superiority, Villanova trumped them.  They refused to allow those silver-spoon, c**k-s**king Blue Devil f*g*t*   to create anything of the dribble.  They were completely stymied. 

 

It’s almost like the tournament has comedown to which team gets the better athletes.  With the nature of today’s player, it is simply too difficult for the lesser team to compete

ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 02:43PM

with them.  I’ve heard a number of people (including myself) lamenting the lack of upsets and how this has been a very square tournament.  I guess these games that look like no-brainers, really are that.  The inferior teams just simply don’t appear to have what it takes to bring down a much bigger and stronger foe.  I mean just looking at some of the team’s standing up next to each other with your eyes; you can see pretty clearly from a physical standpoint the disparity that oftentimes exists.  It only took me about 30 seconds of watching that Purdue/UConn game to realize the Boilermakers were in trouble because of the size and athleticism of the Huskies.  And Purdue isn’t a bunch of slouches either, they’re a good squad.  But UConn has the size of an NBA club; they pretty much operate like a pro team.  Furthermore, not only is it a problem for some of these underdogs to match up physically with the higher seeded favorites, it can also be tough on them mentally.  I think a lot of these lesser teams feel really inferior to the favorites.  I know they’ll always say “we believe we can beat anybody”, but deep down do they really feel that?  I don’t think they do.  The one team that actually was able to pull off a rare upset, Cleveland State, immediately faltered in their next game.  I truly thought this was going to be that team of destiny who made a big run against all odds.  I thought they were that George Mason, Cinderella type team.  What was disconcerting about the way they lost though was that afterwards it didn’t even look like they were that disappointed about being ousted.  I’m not questioning their heart at all, but it just seemed like they were content with winning just one game and they expected that was the end of the road.  Just seemed like a defeatist type of attitude.          

 

 

I do not think this chalk fest is an aberration either, I see it continuing on for many years to come.  There are loud rumors that the NBA is strongly considering upping the age limit from 19 to 20 as part of their new collective bargaining agreement in 2010.  So essentially, a player coming straight out of high school would now be required to spend a minimum of two years playing in college.  If this change does in fact happen, forget about it, the tournament will never be the same.  The underdog mid-major schools will have no chance to compete at a high level whatsoever.  The top schools, which already have the luxury of handpicking the best recruits, will now have these stud players for two full years.  There will be no one and done anymore a la Kevin Durant, OJ Mayo, Eric Gordon, Carmelo Anthony, etc.  Can you imagine what some of these guys would have done playing in college for two years?  My guess though is it’s going be the same schools making the sweet sixteen, elite eight and final four every single year.  Mark it down right now.  I’m not saying you need charming upstarts (i.e. George Mason, Davidson) to make the tournament compelling, but it certainly adds to the mystique and pageantry when it does happen.  I think many people would acknowledge some of their fondest and most vivid tournament memories were created watching some crazy upset.  Now however, that improbable underdog story is being rendered almost obsolete.  That doesn’t mean the tournament still can’t be good theatre, but losing that element of unpredictability really hurts.  When the outcome of the first two rounds is seemingly pre-determined, the games lose a lot of luster in my opinion. 

 

In closing, even though many people might not want to hear this, I think the NCAA tournament could potentially never be the same.  The dearth of upsets and close games

ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 02:43PM

speaks to the dominance of the elite teams and their superiority athletically.  So bet accordingly.  With the possibility of a changing landscape in the NBA in regard to the age limit, the tournament could get even squarer in the coming years.  If the age limit is in fact extended, I just really don’t see any teams outside of North Carolina, Louisville, UConn, Memphis, etc ever making a major run or being able to pull of a stunning upset. 

 

By the way, Vegas your lines are a f**king joke.  I have absolutely no respect for them in this tournament.  You really don’t know f*ck all about f*ck all right now.

 

End Rant.

skaplow says:
03/27/09 02:46PM
very interesting... I was on a couple losing ends of those games as well
djdstruk says:
03/27/09 02:48PM
By the way, Vegas your lines are a f**king joke.  I have absolutely no respect for them in this tournament.  You really don’t know f*ck all about f*ck all right now.


ILPRATO says:
03/27/09 02:52PM
agree
ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 02:58PM
Here are tonight's college fades from ValueforRent:

 

MSU -1

Louisville -9

Syracuse +1

Gonzaga +8

 

blstuart says:
03/27/09 02:59PM
From the general basketball fan aspect I definately prefer tournaments with more cinderellas and upsets.

But I agree that major programs will dominate for years to come, and as a Kansas fan, I like it

djdstruk says:
03/27/09 03:03PM
wow your card is totally opposite of mine except MSU.

one of us will
ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 03:06PM

That should be you.

FATKIDWI says:
03/27/09 03:07PM
Value for Rent

I am not trying to stick a wrench in your rant, because it was a good one.There may be others, but this may be the only one.  Wisky/ FSU was completely a contradiction to your above rant. It stuck out to me cuz I happen to live here.  I do agree with your assesment of athleticism.

As for Vegas lines...they could truly care less if the are near the actual score or not...they are only in the business to get half the money on one side  and half on the other.  Vegas is taking their "fuck all" 10% vig to the bank.  Thats where they live.

wasbri says:
03/27/09 03:09PM
I like ville and cuse. I am worried about back door cover on ville
ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 03:11PM

Well there's always going to be an exception to the rule.  But by and large, the athletic teams are winning.  And most of the time, the games haven't even been close.

ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 03:31PM

I understand that but many of these games I indicated did not get equal action on both sides.  A lof of these games had 70% + or whatever of the public on them and many of them hit.  They exposed themselves big time with some cute lines and then got burned on them.

ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 10:44PM
This tournament is a fucking joke.  More blowouts today.  What else is new.  Empty seats, bad ratings, I'd rather watch the NIT's.

 

goatmc says:
03/27/09 10:49PM


Yeah this has been the worst tournament in my memory. I'm 27.  The NIT in all seriousness has been much more compelling and perhaps better attended.  I'm pumped for the semi's I think we're in for a treat.  I like ND and Baylor to get to the finals, but it could easily be SDST and PSU.  As for the tournament I think we have flushed out all the trash and now we will get some great games going forward.
chicagosouthsd says:
03/27/09 10:53PM
So let me get this straight.  Because the more athletic, bigger, faster, stronger teams, won and covered, this tournament is a "squares dream"?  

 

Not to cause a stir, but I don't get it. 

Johny_Utah says:
03/27/09 11:14PM
Great analysis. I've been getting killed on all these short lines.
Johny_Utah says:
03/27/09 11:16PM
On Michigan State also. Kansas the more athletic team and guess what leading.  I went with Coach Izzo and more experience.
Johny_Utah says:
03/27/09 11:18PM
Hey Value. Nova seems like the more athletic team against Pitt tomorow. But a little scared of Pitts size. Nova really has no post presence.
robertgould79 says:
03/27/09 11:23PM
See ya in the NBA forum!
ValueforRent says:
03/27/09 11:57PM

Don't ask me I got no clue on any of these games.  Was just saying what I've noticed over the course of the tournament. 

Now that the elite eight is finalized it's 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, 1 vs. 3.  Enough said.  This tournament is a chalkfest and will continue to be so for the next five years.  Remember that for next year, I know I will.  Upsets just don't happen anymore, that's the way it is now.  The top dogs are simply too strong and powerful.

gofish3 says:
03/28/09 12:04AM
Damn bro, that's a lot of babble...but I agree w you on the athleticism.

 

From what I've seen you generally have a "smart" viewpoint on the lines in the NBA and you seemed to have carried that over to the NCAA tourney... Bottom line, Joe Public killed this tourney so of course a "smart" bettor got bent over.. Take your lumps and lets finish out the NBA year strong.

Flava83 says:
03/28/09 12:08AM
Great write-up, I really think you hit my frustrations on the head with your "squares" angle. Simply put, the better teams are winning (if that makes sense).
ValueforRent says:
03/28/09 12:17AM

It makes total sense.  Yet for some reason I keep trying to make it more complicated than it should be.

Madd_Capper says:
03/28/09 12:51AM

Stick to what you know

If it makes you feel any better I was on the CUSE as well

GL

ValueforRent says:
03/29/09 01:47PM
Get ready for another slate of blowouts again this afternoon.

If today's games are anything like what's been going on so far this tournament, Louisville and Carolina will cruise. 

 

 

 

GWarner27 says:
03/30/09 01:57AM
great post, v4r, just finished reading all of it

...i think coaching is that much more important now because that's the only way to beat the big dogs, either they don't care or they aren't focused
bracks says:
03/30/09 02:24AM

George-

What about OK/NC today? NC looked at BG, wrong it was a foul.
bracks says:
03/30/09 02:11AM

I think if you did look at all the coaching match ups this past w/e, the better one did win right?

It was all the way to attack (Nova, MSU) or Defend (OK, NC). Yes, those might of have better layers on most, but it was the way they played out the gameplan.
rangerz2478 says:
03/30/09 02:14AM


It really is a fukn joke when the 90% public tickets have been able to cash on a regular basis. That shouldn't happen.
composite says:
03/30/09 04:12AM
I don't care if the NBA age limit jumps to 22, Cinderellas will ALWAYS be around.

 

March Madness is a ONE-AND-DONE format tournament.  It's a lot of pressure for a #1 seed to win every game and there's plenty of seasons when they can't get it done.  For instance, I recall 10 years or so, when NC had Antawn Jamison, Vinsanity, and IIRC, Eric Montross and some other guys.  They got blitzed in the 2nd round to 8th seed Boston College, who had some no name stiffs.

 

They'll often be years of upsets. USC had its chances vs Mich St.  It's just that this year there wasn't as many of  them. 

 

Add your response:
Please note that the blogger has the option of reviewing all comments before they are displayed to the public. Your comment may not be published immediately.
 

Profile

User: ValueforRent
Joined: July 2008
Location:
Team:
Occupation:

Recent Posts

Archive

open2010
open2009

Categories

Advertisement