The Manual Buzzer Presents: NBA Playoffs 2013 Podcast

We're baaaaack and we're talking about the NBA Playoffs and other random shit thrown in. I'll admit I was pretty hammered through this, so, my apologies for the random yelling, the saltiest of salty language, and the non-sequiturs.

Click here to listen in your browser or to download.

What Last Night Taught Us About Blake

To piggyback on Steve's piece from last night (consecutive days of Manual Buzzer for the first time...ever?), we have to discuss what has to be Blake Griffin's forgettable Playoff debut. If there was one reason why the Clippers shouldn't have won that game, it would have to be Griffin's paltry effort against that amazing Grizzlies front line through the first 3 quarters. I never thought anyone could make him look mortal in the same vein that I never thought that anyone could make Amar'e look mortal when he was playing alongside Nash. But Griffin is by no means the strongest player on the court. Marc Gasol and Z-Bo and Speights and Cunningham are an excellent front line that can wear him out, especially without a decoy on the Clippers.

I appreciate how Blake pulled it together late, and I'm sure he has a big game in him sometime this series. My main bone to pick with Blake, that I have had anytime I've watched him, is his half-court game. As Steve referred to Bledsoe and Evan's penchant for playing out of control, in isolation, Blake gets lost and tries to do too much in the half court. I always loved Amar'e's game in the half court because he could jab and blow by his defender for a dunk or fake the drive and hit those elbow jumpers. Blake's shot is sporadic, and when he needs to adjust on the drive, you usually see some wild shot thrown up.

The Clippers are reminiscent of the Amar'e-Nashty Suns, and while Paul is a way better defender and scorer and an equal as a passer to Nash, I think Blake's inability to create quality shots on his own will be the Clippers' downfall, especially against a deep frontline who can focus on stopping him. (For all intents and purposes, Reggie Evans Game 1 "masterpiece" will garner little defensive attention, and there isn't another scoring big on that team anyhow.) Unlike Steve, I'm saying Grizzlies in 6, and an apathetic LA crowd gives home-court back to the Grizz.

A Response to "Time for the Hating to Stop"

I understand why Steve wrote what he did about Lebron. The difference in opinion was captured by the annual Q ratings that ESPN publishes. Steve and I went to the same high school and he is 100% right when it comes to the reaction. Loyalty is overvalued, especially by many NBA fans, but it shouldn't be. It's an economic business.

My issue with it is not race. I am clear, like Larry Bird, and anyone will say that it's still about race. It's about my disappointment with how competitive balance is disappearing from the League. Players like Lebron and Wade can carry teams by themselves, both economically and competitively. Lebron spurred an amazing revival for the Cavaliers. Who would've thought in the six years he spent in Cleveland minus his rookie year, the team had minimum yearly capacity of 94%? And he's a pretty damn good player too, averaging 27.7 PPG, 7.0 APG, and 7.7 RPG for his career. Those numbers are unreal, and they held up this year (26.7 PPG, 7.0 APG, 7.5 RPG). In the playoffs, he's grabbing 8.7 RPG, blocking 1.4 shots per game, and he is down by nearly one turnover to 2.8 per game. While the rule is 2 Hall of Famers or don't even think about seeing the Larry O'Brien trophy, Dwyane Wade absolutely dominated the 2006 Finals. Shaq shot 29% on free throws and only averaged 13.7 PPG in the series. Antoine Walker shot too damn much, and Wade shouldered the scoring load as everyone else focused on shutting down the Mavericks and hitting the open shots, which no one had to consistently do during that series.

But now they're playing together because they're friends. I don't think that Isiah and Jordan were friends (see: here and here). However, Jordan was friends with other NBA players, like Barkley (kind of playing into Jeff Van Gundy's mind games theory). But Jordan, like other players during the 1980's and early-to-mid 1990's, had a different perspective on collaboration: if you were the alpha, you ran by yourself and you ran your pack until, like Barkley, you realize that you aren't able to handle the responsibilities of providing stats. Sure, some alphas don't realize that they sometimes can't provide like they once did (see: Jordan in Washington). But they were willing to isolate themselves and prove themselves alone.

Lebron, who in no way lived a cushy life, has a different perspective on how this friendship should manifest. You can see it in More Than A Game, the documentary that followed Lebron and his St. Vincent-St. Mary teammates through high school. The title speaks volumes about Lebron: I bet he loves basketball, but he values what it has given him: his best friends from before he became famous. Hell, he always said if he'd decided to go to college, he would've gone to Akron because two of his high school teammates, Dru Joyce III and Romeo Travis, were playing there.

My problem with Lebron is that he embodies this change. He is a great team player. It is ridiculous how talented he is. The man has amazing touch from everywhere, he could average a double-double every game if he wanted to focus more on crashing the boards or became more pass-first in his approach.

But Lebron has changed a standard that made the NBA so great: the greatest player never banked on another star to help him get a ring until his prime ended (see: Oscar Robertson, Gary Payton). Now, Lebron has helped to decrease competitive balance within the League by making these partnerships more acceptable. This summer, if the Hornets get contracted, we will probably see Chris Paul end up with the Knicks to team with Amar'e and Carmelo. As Steve points out, it remains to be seen whether Melo and STAT will take the opportunity seriously and step up their defensive games. I mourn the time when stars went for it on their own or with one companion followed by a supporting cast. But I cannot fail to mention, I am extremely excited to see these teams gather great players and wage more classic battles like we've seen throughout these playoffs.

Girardi Party Playoff Party

I feel like I'm ready to talk college football playoffs. I've been holding out on this for a while, but a few things have happened to make me REALLY SUPER PISSED over the last few weeks...

• Arguing last night alongside my cousin against my drunken Notre Dame-fan uncle, who, in addition to stating that there should never be a playoff, claimed that Notre Dame shouldn't even go to a bowl game "because they'll just be continuing their same bad practice habits."
• Just thinking about the Bowl games now... none of them matters except the Title game. At all. At this point, I'd rather see a return to the traditional Bowl alignments than the BCS! That way, you'd have one-loss Oklahoma, USC, Penn State, and Florida all playing for a share of the national championship, and all their respective oppontents trying their best to ruin their seasons! Isn't that more interesting than only one game anyone really cares about? Sure, I'll still watch the Rose Bowl, but knowing that it's not going to weigh into the national title discussion at all takes some excitement out of it... OK, a LOT of excitement.
  
• Arguing with "el Tomas Verde" on 4th and Fail about his stupid playoff proposal—simply taking the top 8 BCS teams—which would never, ever, ever, ever, ever happen.
  
• Reading Pat Forde's pathetic, self-righteous whining that Texas got screwed. You know what, Texas? Stop it. Texas apologists? Stop it. I'm not saying the system is right—far from it—but everyone who has watched any college football during the BCS era knows that timing is everything. If Oklahoma had gotten left out, you'd never hear the end of it from Sooner fans, either. Three Big XII South teams finished with only one loss. Yes, Texas beat Oklahoma head-to-head. But it was early enough in the season that voters had essentially forgotten about it when OU knocked off Texas Tech. If you're talking head-to-head matchups, why should Texas have gone to the Big XII title game over Oklahoma, when Texas was beaten by Texas Tech? Clearly, the only solution is for Mike Leach, Mack Brown, and Bob Stoops to play a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors.

Alright. I'm now going to lay out the rules for GIRARDI PARTY PLAYOFF PARTY. This is not anything earth-shattering, but I wanted to get my proposal out there before that Muslim terrorist we just elected president declares jihad on the BCS. Bear in mind, neither this nor any other playoff will happen under the current BCS contract, because according to many sources, language preventing a playoff is actually written into the BCS's contract with ESPN.

Girardi Party Playoff Party

• Following the regular season and conference championship games (more on those in a minute), a committee would select eight teams to move on to college football's Division IA playoff. These selections would mostly be a formality, and would happen a lot like the BCS Selection Show now: basically, a glorified revealing of the final poll of the season.
  
• The only way a playoff would ever be accepted by the major conferences and college presidents would be if everyone got their piece of the pie, like the BCS now. So, the winners of the six BCS conferences (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-10, SEC) would get automatic berths into the playoffs. The same rules would also be in effect for non-BCS teams and Notre Dame that exist now—namely, that ND gets in automatically if it's in the top 12, and any non-BCS-conference team gets in automatically if it's in the top 8.
• If any spots remain after the auto-bids are taken care of, up to two at-large teams could be selected for the playoffs, as well.
• In order to keep the "tradition" alive, the four BCS sites would host the first round games of the playoffs, and much like the case today, the title game would rotate between the four sites.
• Second-round matchups (i.e., the "Final Four") would be home games for the higher-seeded remaining teams.
  
• In terms of seeding, there would be no preference for conference champions—that is, all eight teams are seeded by a committee in the order they believe to be 1 through 8. No intra-conference matchups in the first round.

Let's take a look at what we would have had this year... try not to explode in your shorts thinking about the sheer awesomeness.

First Round - December 24/26
1. Oklahoma vs. 8. Utah at the Rose Bowl
2. Florida vs. 7. Virginia Tech at the Fiesta Bowl
3. USC vs. 6. Cincinnati at the Sugar Bowl
4. Texas vs. 5. Penn State at the Orange Bowl

We can project winners for these games pretty easily, except perhaps for the 4/5 game, and we'd be left with the Final Four on New Year's Day—that's a tradition I could get used to.

"Final Four" - January 1
1. Oklahoma vs. 4. Texas, at Oklahoma
2. Florida vs. 3. USC, at Florida

And finally, assuming higher seeds prevail...

Title Game - January 8
1. Oklahoma vs. 2. Florida, at the Orange Bowl

Now, this year, if all held to form, we'd have the same matchup that we do in the BCS Title Game. All questions, however, would be answered. This works because the Bowls still get to host their big games and make their money. The conferences are guaranteed their money. The fans get to plan their trips to Bowl games, watch on TV, or be rewarded with an extra home game. Everyone gets to see what they do with the very successful NCAA Basketball Tournament: one unquestioned champion, tons of exciting games, and lots of sponsorship exposure.

Look: A potential Oklahoma/Texas rematch on New Year's Day. JoePa gets his crack at a national championship, after all, as does Utah. You have the potential for a "Cinderella" if VaTech or Cincy could catch someone napping. ESPN gets a week between each round to build up anticipation and hype for the games. The season ends on the same day that it does with the current arrangement and the Bowls don't start any earlier.

People, however, like my drunk uncle, are still arguing against a playoff. They have dozens of excuses for why it's a bad idea and why the Bowls are the best system, etc. Let's debunk some of these arguments, right now, and put in a few more caveats while we're at it.


It would ruin the tradition of the Bowls
With this arrangement, the big Bowl games still get to host huge matchups—granted, not on New Year's Day—and make tons of money. Every four years, as happens now, each Bowl will also get to host the Title Game. And I'm sorry, but I can't even think of a viable argument against the Final Four teams being rewarded with an extra home game; these teams will almost always be the 1 and 2 seeds, and they have extremely difficult games. Giving them home-field advantage sufficiently rewards them for a great regular season.

And in terms of the other Bowls, go ahead, play 'em! They make money, and there would still be some lucrative matchups and big names out there to play for pride. I don't think that I would bemoan the loss of the grand tradition of the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl, but for those people who care, the sponsors who pony out the dough, and the teams who still want to travel and end their season on a high note, nobody would be stopping them.

The season is too long / The kids are students and have finals
First: no, they are not students. Most student-athletes, even at major NCAA powers, are students first and foremost, yes. But not Division 1A football players, and especially not at places like Oklahoma, Texas, Penn State, USC, and Florida. The vast majority of those kids are there to play football. And frankly, I don't care too much that they get extra help and get pushed through the system—they make so much money for these places that any extra attention they get is them getting paid back by their university.

Beside that, GPPP would start on Christmas Eve, long after finals are over. Even at an awful place like Michigan where finals go until the 23rd, alternate arrangements could be made, like you always see with NCAA hoops players taking exams at their hotels. So please, anyone who is standing on their soapbox rattling off reasons that this playoff is bad for academia, stop it. The BCS—and especially the addition of the fifth Title Game—is a blatant attempt to make as much money as possible. That's it. (Imagine how much money the BCS could make selling TV and sponsorship rights to its playoff...)

The regular season wouldn't mean as much
This is the argument I hear the most. I can see where people are coming from, too. In March Madness, you have 10 to 12 loss teams that are "on the bubble," teams getting in at-large who went .500 in-conference, and teams who can completely mail in their conference tournaments and still be confident in getting a bid.

That, however, would not be the case in a playoff with only eight teams—with only two at-large bids in a good year! Look at the field this year. How many two-loss teams do you see? That's right: none. A second loss would knock you completely out of the playoffs. While we're at it, look at the deserving one-loss and undefeated teams that were left out! Texas Tech suffered one late-season loss and was eliminated. The same goes for Alabama, who would be the team with the biggest beef this year. And then you have undefeated Boise State, who has proven its post-season mettle, still not getting in.

Also bear in mind that conference winners get automatic bids, and then you're REALLY looking at an extremely important regular season. One bad loss in conference could be all that's needed to knock you out of an autobid, leaving you praying for a scarce at-large bid or sending you to the Papajohns.com Bowl. Additionally, even with an playoff bid "locked up," you are still playing for seeding, as you want to be the team hosting that Final Four game, not going on the road!

(A side note about conference champions: I hate the conference championship games, but I understand that they're not going anywhere because of the money involved. That said, "divisions" are the stupidest idea in the history of mankind. The whole OU/Texas controversy this year could have been avoided if the conferences simply didn't have divisions, and the two highest-rated teams went to the conference title game every year, period. Oh, boo hoo, Kansas and Missouri; Oklahoma and Texas are always the best two teams? Too bad. Build a better program. We could have had a de facto playoff this year, with the Big XII and SEC winners being the "Final Four," but that was ruined by the Big XII intentionally loading its South division so that the crappy North teams have a chance, too.)

Teams will still get left out
This one really grinds my geahs. OF COURSE teams are still going to get left out. Unless you orchestrate a season-long playoff of all the Division 1 teams, somebody's not going to be invited to the party. You want the playoff to be exclusive and difficult to get into so that the regular season will still matter, remember? Think about the teams who would have the best arguments that they got screwed this year if there were a playoff. Texas Tech? Yes... but they got thumped by Oklahoma and barely squeaked by Baylor, and didn't win their conference. Sorry. Alabama? Perhaps, but when you compare Texas with Tech and 'Bama, Texas has the more impressive résumé; its wins hold up better now. Boise State? Yes, they have a legitimate complaint. They, however, play in a dog of a conference and would have been there if not getting shown up by Utah, who plays in a better conference and played a much tougher schedule as a result. Too bad.

Basically, you have to win your BCS conference, or be one of the one or two best teams outside of that to get in. Teams will get left out, but those left-out teams have much weaker arguments that they belong there than the teams who actually got in. Honestly, what would you be more upset about: the fact that questionable Alabama, Boise, and Tech teams didn't get a chance in the playoffs? Or that one-loss Texas, who beat one of the Title Game competitors head to head, doesn't get a chance to play for a national championship? If teams are going to be left out regardless, best to be more inclusive rather than less.


Note: I think that the weakest part of my proposal is the fact that the BCS Bowl games have to move to an earlier date, but it's a necessary evil to make sure that all four Bowls get an equal shot every year. One way to change this would be to make the 1 and 2 seeds play their home games in the first round instead, with the 3 and 4 seed first round games, the final four, and the title game all rotating amongst the BCS bowls to make them happy. I just figured that my way was a bit more egalitarian.