Ty-
It's the Bulls. I know it's crazy to flop on my pick after one game but I do think this series could still go 7 games. They are the most in trouble because of two big reasons. The first being that they struggle to score and the Wizards have no such problem. The other problem is that the frontline of Nene and Marcin Gortat might be too much to handle for the Bulls. The Bulls usually have an advantage on the inside with Noah, Gibson and Boozer but not in this series. When I originally made my pick I thought that Nene would still be slowed. Because he only played 5 games to end the regular season after missing time with an injury. But the Bulls are going to have to score more than the high 80's to win this series.
Spencer-
In my mind the Rockets are probably in the most trouble of losing the series after a game one loss. That game last night was fantastic first of all! It seemed like the Rockets had it locked up but then the Blazers competed well at the end to force OT and take it. Aldridge and Lillard dominated and they showed composure late. Now Portland has home court advantage by taking one in Houston. I don't think the Rockets are defensively sound enough to stop the tandem of Aldridge and Lillard. Also Dwight Howard is going to struggle grabbing rebounds with Aldridge, who had 18 boards last night, down there competing with him. I've always said Howard can be soft when he has a challenger so I think Aldridge will continue to exploit that. Not only that but these two teams being the four and five seeds and ending the regular season with identical records says a lot too. These teams are probably the most evenly matched in the Western side of the playoffs so it could go either way.
2. Which NBA Playoff team impressed you the most in game 1? Which team disappointed you?
Spencer-
The Wizards probably impressed me the most in their game one win over the Bulls, while the Pacers easily disappointed me the most. I thought the Wizards proved a lot about themselves downing arguably the most defensive sound team in the league on their home floor in game one. It seemed like everyone contributed as all five starters had 13 points or more in the game and they just grinded their way to a win. Give the Wiz some credit. On the other end you got the Pacers...I was sold that they were going to be ready to go when the playoffs got started and back to their winning form. Instead they struggled, got outscored 30-16 in the third quarter and Hibbert is still invisible offensively. They got embarrassed on their home floor by the Hawks and if they don't get it together, all the expectations they had for a championship may fade away after one round.
Ty-
The Wizards really impressed me but I think the Thunder did a little more. They came out and you could see the championship level they could dial it to by streaking to a 20 point lead relatively quick. I wasn't really surprised that the Grizzlies came back. They are a gritty and resilient team but they also had to play their starters all of the 3rd quarter to get back in the game and then couldn't hang on again. Westbrook was fantastic in the first half and erratic in the second half but he has been more of the "Good" Westbrook than the "Bad" Westbrook for most of the year so the Thunder really impressed me cause they look like they could sweep a team that won 50 games.
The Pacers obviously was everybody's disappointment. I knew that the Hawks were going to be a problem for the Pacers because of how they spread out on offfense with shooting bigs, (Antic and Milsap). That does not excuse the Pacers for absolutely laying an egg at home, in the playoffs, against a team that was 6 games under .500. They need to get it together, and fast. I'm pretty sure Larry Bird would have said that last sentence with a little more expletives.
Spencer-
The Wizards probably impressed me the most in their game one win over the Bulls, while the Pacers easily disappointed me the most. I thought the Wizards proved a lot about themselves downing arguably the most defensive sound team in the league on their home floor in game one. It seemed like everyone contributed as all five starters had 13 points or more in the game and they just grinded their way to a win. Give the Wiz some credit. On the other end you got the Pacers...I was sold that they were going to be ready to go when the playoffs got started and back to their winning form. Instead they struggled, got outscored 30-16 in the third quarter and Hibbert is still invisible offensively. They got embarrassed on their home floor by the Hawks and if they don't get it together, all the expectations they had for a championship may fade away after one round.
Ty-
The Wizards really impressed me but I think the Thunder did a little more. They came out and you could see the championship level they could dial it to by streaking to a 20 point lead relatively quick. I wasn't really surprised that the Grizzlies came back. They are a gritty and resilient team but they also had to play their starters all of the 3rd quarter to get back in the game and then couldn't hang on again. Westbrook was fantastic in the first half and erratic in the second half but he has been more of the "Good" Westbrook than the "Bad" Westbrook for most of the year so the Thunder really impressed me cause they look like they could sweep a team that won 50 games.
The Pacers obviously was everybody's disappointment. I knew that the Hawks were going to be a problem for the Pacers because of how they spread out on offfense with shooting bigs, (Antic and Milsap). That does not excuse the Pacers for absolutely laying an egg at home, in the playoffs, against a team that was 6 games under .500. They need to get it together, and fast. I'm pretty sure Larry Bird would have said that last sentence with a little more expletives.
3. The NHL Playoffs started over the weekend as well. There is already 4 teams in 0-2 holes and 1 in a 0-3 hole. Which of team in this situation has the best chance to make a comeback?
Ty-
None of these teams might come back but it is hockey so anything can happen. Although the Sharks have been taking it too the Kings. I still feel like the Kings have a good chance to come back. Sometimes losing by a lot is better than close losses because it forces the team to adjust a lot and not think it's something simple to fix. I do think the Kings have the talent to win the series but just need to get in a little rhythm. That being said the next game is obviously a most win or this series is basically over.Spencer-
Before Brent Seabrooks suspension I would of said the Blackhawks had the best chance to comeback down 0-2, but I think his absence may leave too big of a void in the defense for Chicago to come back in the series. That means I've got to go with Dallas to have the best chances to comeback down 0-2 to Anaheim. The Ducks have done a great job of keeping Tyler Seguin in check but I think he will finally break out as the Stars come home now. For the Ducks their goalie situation also could be an advantage for Dallas as they have given the reigns to the young Frederik Andersen and he has come up big this far, but I look for the Stars to exploit him a little more. Getting more shots on net is always a start. I can see them getting in his head a little bit and making this a series.
4. Yesterday in the Pirates, Brewers game Carlos Gomez caused some controversy for his bat flip and admiration of a triple he hit in the third inning, which lead to a benches clearing brawl. Do you think Gomez is out of line for breaking an unwritten rule of respect in baseball? Or does baseball need to accept a changing game where pride should be acceptable?
Spencer-
I love the game of baseball dearly, and I love a lot of the tradition that goes along with it. However I don't think it is a bad thing for a guy to show some excitement on a play maybe flip his bat watch his home run fly if you will. It's just like guys in the NBA posterizing someone and screaming while they beat their chest. Or a guy in the NFL motioning a first down or doing a dance after a big play to celebrate a little. These are parts of the emotion of the game in my mind. If you don't like a guy watching his home run leave the park then there is a simple solution...GET HIM OUT. Don't blame a guy for getting excited and showing some pride in his work, that's part of the game. Why can't someone be prideful on the field about their performance or success? I think it is time to start being more accepting of these things. There shouldn't be all these unwritten rules. The culture changes overtime. It's time baseball got on board, and I think it may help their popularity and viewership.
Ty-
Spencer-
I love the game of baseball dearly, and I love a lot of the tradition that goes along with it. However I don't think it is a bad thing for a guy to show some excitement on a play maybe flip his bat watch his home run fly if you will. It's just like guys in the NBA posterizing someone and screaming while they beat their chest. Or a guy in the NFL motioning a first down or doing a dance after a big play to celebrate a little. These are parts of the emotion of the game in my mind. If you don't like a guy watching his home run leave the park then there is a simple solution...GET HIM OUT. Don't blame a guy for getting excited and showing some pride in his work, that's part of the game. Why can't someone be prideful on the field about their performance or success? I think it is time to start being more accepting of these things. There shouldn't be all these unwritten rules. The culture changes overtime. It's time baseball got on board, and I think it may help their popularity and viewership.
Ty-
I know everybody loves the old saying of, "Act like you've been there" but I have no clue why. I understand that you don't want people to be over excited for every little thing but I love it. Sports is about raw emotion for the most part and I love when guys show emotion and are excited by something they did. It shows that they are into the game. Also if you don't want that person to showboat after a hit then don't let him get a hit. It's that simple. The fact it ended in a brawl because of these traditions, is why people think that baseball is boring. It's because guys rarely show the emotion players do when they score a touchdown, dunk, or hit a three.
What we learned
Last week I heard a lot about how the NHL playoffs was great because it is so unpredictable.
This came up during last weeks debate on which Sports' postseason was best. NHL lovers argued parity and unpredictability even though last years Stanley Cup had 2 of the best teams in the sport.
Now hockey has 5 teams that have not won a game yet after playing at least 2 games in the playoffs. Those teams could still come back in the series but it looks pretty one sided in the NHL so far besides a few series. NHL home teams are 12 and 5 so far.
Meanwhile the NBA had 5 road teams win in the first weekend of the playoffs. Most of the games have been played well and now those series have a bunch of intrigue. Even the Spurs-Mav game could have easily been a win for the Mavs as well. I'm not really surprised that these playoffs have been interesting because of how many great teams there were in the regular season. There never really looked like a nomber one clear favorite going into the playoffs and it has made it very hazy and intriguing.
No that the NHL playoffs haven't been great because it has been too. But it isn't as unpredictable as it has been in the past and there has been a little more drama in the NBA so far.
Spencer- The NCAA knows they must change or face extinction
In the wake of the NCAAs decision to give college athletes unlimited meals, a bold statement has been made by college's athletics governing body. "We must reform or die." Now I don't mean die in the extreme sense that the bodies employees will be killed, although picturing NCAA athletes storming the headquarters in Indianapolis with torches and pitch forks is entertaining. Rather, the existence of the NCAA as an organization is determined by the changes they make or don't make.
It is no secret that the big schools have already expressed their disappointment in the NCAAs policies and decisions and breaking away to form their own governing organization has been hinted at by a number of media sources over the last year. With all that in the forefront of their mind I think Mark Emmert and the NCAA have felt the pressure. Pressure that forced them to look at some of their rules and reevaluate their purposes. The first rule change is this one with meals and I feel there is a number of new rule changes in the works as I write this blog. If the NCAA loses these big schools they lose their recognition, their funding and their reputation, which mind you isn't great already.
In a way the NCAA is being help at ransom...With one team in Northwestern already unionizing it could spark a slippery slope of other teams unionizing, and the NCAA sees the writing on the wall. If they don't start meeting these teams demands those officials will be out of a job. The unionizing isn't just about paying these players though, it is about fair treatment and compensation for their work, which mind you it is work. The unlimited meals is just the first step for the NCAA to seek a more fair system for these athletes. In the end it could end in players becoming university employees. Something that the NCAA seeing as hurting the integrity of the college athletes playing for the love of the game. To me unlimited meals is a step in the right direction and I look forward to seeing what other changes come about because I think for the funding these players generate for the school they deserve more. Scholarships for education aren't enough for guys who wouldn't be getting an education otherwise. Scholarship for school doesn't equal a valuable education and that's the bottom line here. I think we will continue to see the NCAA make necessary changes that benefit the athletes more and it could ultimately end in them being paid as university employees.
No comments:
Post a Comment