by Dr. David W. Overbey
By this time next year, in-coming UK recruits D'Aaron Fox, Malik Monk, and three or four other All-Universe basketball players will be celebrating their declaration for the NBA draft and UK followers will revel in the likelihood that half of the lottery picks will be from UK's team--the team that of course will play one season together and then disband.
That's what happens when the games themselves and the season they comprise have become so boring--a consequence of their excessive importance and simultaneous meaninglessness.
Before I go further, let me make this point: the 2015-16 college basketball season was the worst ever in the thirty-plus years I remember being an avid college basketball fan.
Disclaimers: As a UK fan, I lost interest after the woeful loss to IU. At 47, my interest in watching college basketball can't realistically be what it was when I was 27, and playing basketball every chance I got; Generally speaking as a person, I find it increasingly difficult to find anything positive to say about anything.
But now that we have all of that out of the way, here are some observations in support of my main point.
This was the first year I can recall when there were no really, really, good or even great teams on the college landscape. And I'm hardly the only person to make this observation. The #1 spot in the rankings was a revolving door of teams that would look good for a week and then lose to an obviously inferior squad. When the brackets came out, observers noted that cumulatively the #1 seeds collectively had more losses than at any time previously in the history of seeded NCAA tournaments.
There is a difference between parity and the absence of really good teams. Sub-par basketball is not dramatic; it's dull.
Despite efforts to speed up the game, increase scoring, and create greater flow--which is kind of like saying "in an effort to make operas musical"--this season was characterized by low scoring games, dull play, tentative players, and controlling coaches. I wrote in a recent blog that UK and coach John Calipari are prime examples. Calipari makes it a point to recruit the very top talent at every position, and then plays as though it is somehow to his advantage to keep the scoring down and win with defense and rebounding--the strategy of lesser-talented teams.
This year's NCAA tournament has been so boring that the most interesting topic to discuss according to the media was the "controversy" over an Oregon player shooting, and making, a 45-foot three-pointer with less than a minute to go and the shot-clock running out. Bad sportsmanship. Duke had already lost the game. Why was Duke losing and Oregon winning less important than some pseudo-Aristotlean discourse about the ethics of jacking up a 45-footer versus dribbling out the shot-clock? Because that's how damn boring the games themselves have gotten, and how vapid the jackass talking-heads who "analyze" the game have become. Bad basketball and bad pundits: made for each other.
A major factor in the deterioration of the game has been that the money/business side of an always somewhat-seedy operation has completely taken over the college game. When young players already good enough to go straight to the NBA from high school are mandated to take a one-year layover to play for a para-professional "amateur" team, that is when the silly and dishonest status of big-time college players as "amateur" descends into the ridiculous and corrupt.
One sad consequence of the one-and-done trend that has marked college basketball for the last six seasons is the absence of joy and flow the players exhibit in playing the games. The players will never have a chance to bond or even fathom that the time they spend together in "college" could be meaningful in and of itself rather than just a means-to-an-end. Forget the predictable "feel good" stories about players bonding, and coaches bonding with teams. My point is that the demeanor of the players during games gives away that the game has lost the joy and artistry that make it more fun to watch than someone putting up drywall. The first five minutes of the Virginia-Syracuse regional final were so uptight that the players looked like the first person to miss a shot would be sacrificed at halftime.
College basketball has become a symptom of the very system that once made it great. The availability of big money to give college basketball teams big arenas to play in, followed by the proliferation of cable, made college basketball one of the most entertaining programs around. Not long after, the addition of the shot-clock and three-pointer made the game even better. It was highly unusual that a player would leave before his four years of eligibility were up. Michael Jordan--the best basketball player of all time--still did not depart for the NBA until after his junior season. That's how meaningful the college game was a few decades ago.
Kentucky's super-talented and deep championship team of 1996 was led by two great players who stayed all four years: Tony Delk and Walter McCarty. Ron Mercer even stuck around for a second season after that championship before he went to the NBA. Kentucky's 1998 team was characterized by a group of players who I really believe thought winning a national title for UK was the most important thing in the world--when it came to basketball anyway--even more important than a possible NBA career. Sure, those players were not the NBA stars-to-be that the current teams are, but there is no question that for them to wear the Kentucky jersey and win an NCAA title for UK gave them the joy and desire to play and win. The players today know why they are there and it ain't "for the love of the game;" let's not pretend otherwise.
This year, no one has looked terribly interested in playing basketball--as though the entire season has been a four-month NIT tournament in disguise that will mercifully come to an end this weekend, so we can watch more exciting things like golf tournaments and spring training baseball games (yes, that's a joke).
That's because the big money and big-time media coverage that made college basketball so exciting not long ago have now made it a dull, mechanical, big-money operation that has zapped the joy and desire out of the games themselves. UK fans once-upon-a-time would still be lamenting the loss to IU and insisting over beers that UK would have given UNC a much better game than IU did. Not until late September came around, and Midnight Madness suddenly was right around the corner, would fans turn their focus to the upcoming season. And the concern--believe it or not--would be how good the team would be--not how high the recruiting class was ranked or how many projected lottery picks would bolt from the program ASAP. Nothing says "It's been my dream to play for UK and I love playing for the Big Blue" than "I want to get out of here as soon as I can because the only reason to play is for the big bucks."
Spare me the argument that it's good for the players and their families that the players get big-money pro contracts as soon as they can and that Calipari is some "genius" for figuring out how to use the one-and-done loophole to his advantage. Calipari has done an excellent job recruiting and shown he can coach well in high-stakes, pressure-packed NCAA tournament games. He and UK are hardly the sole sources of college basketball's demise.
In fact, it may be no one's fault: just a simple reality that nothing stays great forever. What's too bad is that college basketball in its present form isn't going to go away: the low-scoring games, the lack of chemistry and artistry to how teams play, and the overly-serious approach the coaches implement will only harden and further deteriorate the quality of play. And on top of all that is the undeniable reality that the conflict over the "amateur" status of college basketball players and the tons of money swirling about the game has reached a point where the game is broken. If anyone truly cared about the financial well-being of college basketball players, they would be paid like the young pros they are, and how soon they got to the NBA--if they were good enough at all--would not cast the giant, dollar-sign shaped shadow over the college game the way it does now.
Not that anyone will listen, but I have some recommendations:
The regular season has become incredibly dull because it is saturated with pre-conference games that are deliberately non-competitive followed by a conference schedule of redundant match-ups that tell us little about how good anyone really is because no one will play a competitive non-conference game unless it includes a week-long vacation in Hawaii or the Bahamas. The point, of course, is to rack up as many wins playing at home against teams who have no chance of winning before the "grueling"conference schedule kicks in and teams have to go into hostile opponent's arenas to gut out tough wins over conference opponents. Why? Because the regular season is now nothing but a means-to-an-end for the NCAA tournament: three months of dull basketball is not the formula for a final three weeks of excitement. But the formula is in place: win as many games as possible, get as high a seed as possible, get the easiest bracket as possible, and a Final Four birth has the highest odds of happening. Yeah! How exciting!
The most exciting weekend of this past season came in late January when the SEC and Big 12 took a break from business-as-usual and played games against one another in a day-long, inter-conference challenge. It was refreshing to see SEC teams play someone besides someone from the SEC. Florida upset West Virginia, Oklahoma beat LSU in the final minute, and Kentucky took Kansas into overtime before losing. Why can't the entire regular season be more like that? Why can't both the regular season and the NCAA tournament be exciting, instead of neither? For example, why does Kentucky play Illinois St. but no longer will play IU? Why does UK play Arizona State instead of bordering Virginia? Why does UK--like all other major teams--make it a point to play as few competitive games home-and-away as possible? What does anyone --the fans, coaches, or players--get from watching Kentucky beat Illinois St. in Rupp Arena? What cause for celebration! The game is dull, the outcome is predictable, the players do not learn about the weak links in their games, they don't improve by playing such a game, and the coaches have nothing to work with in order to figure out how to make the team its best.
The dull play and super-serious, super-controlled approach of the coaches has led to once-unfathomable breakdowns in basic basketball plays. How did taking all of the joy and fun out of playing basketball help Northern Iowa--a team that beat UNC--somehow not be able to inbound the ball to the point it blew a twelve point lead with 44 seconds to go? My point is that making the game mechanical, predictable, and as non-spontaneous or artistic as possible does nothing for making the play more fundamentally sound. Texas A&M's comeback against N. Iowa was less about anything amazing the Aggies did than a harsh example of how dysfunctional the game has become. In-bounding the freaking ball is now something else to stress out about and dissect endlessly.
So, for whatever it's worth, make the pre-conference schedule more competitive, and in turn, shorten the conference season so that it isn't the hum-drum round-robin same old thing over and over again that it has become. No need to play every conference foe home and away every year. Play half of conference opponents only once, home this year, away the next, and play only half both home and away. Then after two years, switch up who plays whom only once and which teams will meet twice.
Get rid of the worthless postseason conference tournaments. Even coaches like Calipari have out-right said they don't like them. How many times do teams have to play each other and beat other before something is settled? Getting rid of the postseason tournaments would give teams more chance to rest and nagging injuries to heal. Besides, the tournaments are worthless. They serve no purpose but to make money, and when that is the only purpose to a human endeavor it becomes the worst version of itself it can be. Winning a postseason conference means nothing. Austin Peay was not going to beat Kansas, and Kansas would gladly trade its Big 12 Conference Tournament title for a re-match with Villanova where they might resemble the team that could score in the 70s as it did when it plowed through the Big Twelve regular season.
Imagine a UK season that begins with away games at Virginia and Indiana, (oh my God, UK could start 0-2? Even the football team doesn't do that!) followed by home games versus Ohio State and Maryland, and then throw in some automatic wins before the annual showdown with Louisville. Then go out west and play Oregon, or up east and play Syracuse on the road? Why not a head-to-head versus West Virginia or nearby Butler? An early season schedule like that would undoubtedly be more exciting than opening with Albany and New Jersey Institute of Technology, opponents who have no chance of giving UK a competitive game much less beating them. Such a challenging early season schedule would seem to be just the thing for UK teams that for the foreseeable future will be comprised of "freshmen" who won't have four year to mature and improve.
And Louisville was just as bad as UK when it came to early season scheduling: the same idea was at work--rack up as many wins as possible before the conference season starts and play the odds to get the highest seed and best draw possible (assuming there is no self-imposed postseason ban).
In any case, the pre-conference schedule for UK that I humbly suggest would be more entertaining for a regular season dominated by two-and-a-half months of games against Georgia, Auburn, Arkansas, etc.--games either UK will win by blowout or lose to the confusion and consternation of the fan base.
As for this year's final four, the best thing about it is that this season will end. The semi-final match-ups are appropriately dull and predictable. Oklahoma already blew out Villanova in December, and while I'm sure the Final Four match up will be more competitive, Oklahoma will likely control and win a game Villanova will do everything to slow down and make as dull as possible. UNC is talented but has underachieved, yet they are going to make it all the way to the title game without a seriously competitive game.
To make things worse, the NCAA has to schedule the Final Four in some giant sports dome in Houston that has shown itself to be shooter-non-friendly--just what the game needs for its jewel moment. The last time this site was host to the Final Four--which obviously ought to be display of the most impressive, exciting, and competitive basketball of the season--UConn and Butler set a tournament record for offensive futility in the 2011 title game. Maybe this year will be an inspiration if the four teams actually hit outside shots and play games that don't end in the 50s. Personally, I think college basketball has gotten so bad the Final Four should be televised in black-and-white--or only broadcast over the radio. Then the intelligentsia of America can debate the ethical and tactical variables that determined the games' outcomes while reminding us regular people how college basketball makes its players and coaches into the best versions of human beings the universe has ever known.
And then a football school, Oklahoma, beats a basketball school, UNC for the title in the last game of a season that can't end too soon.
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Flint Water Crisis Reveals that Intellectualism Isn't Dangerous--but Faith Is
By Dr. David W. Overbey
23 March 2016
One of the major topics in a recent Democrat primary debate that most Americans—regardless of party affiliation—have forgotten about or lost interest in, was the Flint, Michigan water crisis. In order to make up for a tax break given to wealthy corporations, Republican governor Rick Snyder of Michigan decided it would be a good idea to change the water source for the city of Flint, without changing the way that water was treated, to save money. As a result, Flint’s water is now contaminated with lead, which is poisonous and effects children for a lifetime. Intellectuals and critical thinkers in this society, a minority for sure, are likely the only people who will continue to harp on this crisis and ask questions like why the Obama administration and Federal government has not treated the Flint water crisis as a national emergency that demands urgent attention. Many people who reside in Flint, including children, have been poisoned by the lead-contaminated water, and this poisoning has caused irreversible lifelong damage to people’s brains and physiological well-being. There is no antidote for lead poisoning.
Is it unrealistic to expect that people have clean, running water to drink and to bathe in, as a basic service government should provide? Already this disgraceful event appears to have departed from the American consciousness as the political season lumbers on with unending examination of Donald Trump and the media-driven obsession with getting Bernie Sanders out of the way as soon as possible.
Rather than get into a rhetorical quagmire about why the National Guard could, for example, be rebuilding Flint’s water system infrastructure right now or why everything is the fault of Congress, I wish to point out that the Flint water crisis reveals a bogus and disingenuous representation of the intellectual in American society, and a clash between intellectualism and faith that undermines our country’s well-being. To begin, it is not an “idea” that the water in Flint has been poisonous for some time and apparently will be poisonous for the foreseeable future; it is a fact. But it is an idea—and an intellectual one at that—that the Flint water crisis betrays how little Americans really care about one another and how extreme their views are when it comes to the rigid insistence that government has no obligation whatsoever to provide its people with basic needs and services.
The crisis in Flint (and it is a crisis, not an inconvenience, when people are living in a poisoned infrastructure) has drawn attention to the fact that such a crisis is not limited to Flint. Other cities have antiquated, polluted water systems. The USA Today reported “High Lead Levels Found In 2,000 Water Systems Across USA (2016, March 17). That’s 2,000 water systems “spanning all 50 states.” Some examples of contaminated water systems include “a water sample at a Maine elementary school [that] was 42 times higher than the EPA limit of 15 parts per billion, while a Pennsylvania preschool was 14 times higher” according to records. The report goes on: “At an elementary school in Ithaca, N. Y. one sample tested this year at a stunning 5,000 ppb of lead, the EPA’s threshold for ‘hazardous waste’.” Poisonous infrastructures are not limited to lead-contaminated water. Recently, media covered a story of a Town Hall building in Illinois that has mold growing in the ceiling. Not enough money, of course, either to fix the problem or build a new building. Breathing mold is bad for one’s health, in case that needs to be pointed out.
The intellectual’s reaction to this problem will include the possible reality that America’s government doesn’t care about its people, an idea people don’t want to fathom or will dismiss as a “conspiracy,” the facts about poisoned water and mold-covered ceilings irrelevant in the face of the people’s faith in the good will of their elected officials and the institutions that exist to serve them. Meanwhile,when a city of people have been poisoned by lead-contaminated water, the national government’s reaction is as though it is no big deal.
It’s not just a matter of people being indifferent to something that isn’t happening to them personally—this problem shows a level of alienation and disregard for one’s fellow citizens that is disturbing, both in terms of the short-lived attention to the problem itself by the public as well as the public’s lack of expectation that government at some level—the federal level if need be—should treat this crisis as a national emergency. Instead, public discourse delves into yet another civics lesson on why the money and manpower just can’t be there to take care of the situation. While there may be a great deal of chatter on social media about how awful this problem is, the fact remains that the government’s response is incredibly slow in light of the severity of the danger the problem poses, and the public seems unwilling to consider the lead-poisoned water problem in all fifty states as a glaring sign their government couldn’t care less about its well-being, even when we are talking about the water young school children drink in an Ivy School city (Ithaca is home to Cornell University).
While the indifference to what has been happening in Flint does not have a single cause or explanation, I would argue that a major factor in the public’s indifference and the government’s inaction is a tragic result of a faith-based view of the world, and America in particular. There is a secular faith that holds everything will be OK because in America things always have a happy ending; and that if some people suffer it must be their fault. Such a position is a tenant of both religious and secularist faith: those of religious faith see the poisoned water as a form of God’s punishment of immoral people, a version of the same idea that became popular during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s. Secular faith argues that the affected people are themselves either lazy and poor and thus deserve no better or that the local officials are lazy and incompetent and so the suffering of the locals is justified--a twisted version of “survival of the fittest” if you will. People in Flint, according to such mindsets, are not educated or hard-working enough to live somewhere else, so it is not an outrage they have literally been poisoned by the Michigan state government.
Both forms of faith--religious and secular-- run so strong and deep that a scientific framework for how and why this poisoning occurred is not even worthy of consideration and a distraction from the blessed life all of us have because we live in America, as though Flint and Beverly Hills may as well be the same place. It doesn’t take an intellectual to realize that the wealth and quality of life in such places is drastically different, and one cannot speak of “America” as though it were a place of homogenous well being and equality.
My point, then, is that it is not intellectualism that is dangerous, but faith--be it religious or secular. Secular faith in the American way leads to apathy and indifference even in the face of events like this one that ought to disgust the entire nation and heighten awareness about the quality of local infrastructures everywhere. Secular faith feeds the valid but beaten-to-death observation that Congress has been obstructionist toward the President’s attempts to enact worthwhile programs and adequately fund the EPA. Thus, the public simply accepts that Flint will continue to have lead-contaminated water until “the system” is able to get around to fixing the problem.
As for religious faith, I have no objection to religious organizations, although it is obvious to me that at least some of them are havens of bigotry and hate-mongering. In any case, all the faith in the world in any deity one may worship will have no affect on the situation in Flint. All the prayers and good wishes will not reverse the neurological, developmental, and physiological damage done to residents, especially the children. It is all well and good to want to be a good person and avow to be thy “brother’s keeper,” as it were. But such religious disposition is worthless when it comes to a problem that can only be understood scientifically and can only be dealt with when one lets go of these secular and religious forms of faith. And that means listening to the intellectual rather than vilifying such a person.
People in whom we put a great deal of trust can turn out to be terrible human beings who are not only incompetent but appear, like Gov. Snyder, to think that the extreme suffering of others simply falls under the “shit happens” category of how life works. Obviously Gov. Snyder doesn’t give a damn about the people of Flint, and the EPA apparently doesn’t either, as it has no commitment to the scientific focus and professionalism necessary to make sure that people don’t turn on faucets in their own homes that release poison. That is too much to ask of them. The public can resort to its predictable blaming of the GOP for undermining the EPA’s mission, but that response achieves nothing but to reinforce a "good vs. bad" view of the world. The EPA has no excuse for letting a problem like this occur.
I find it easy to believe Gov. Snyder hates the people whom he serves--except the wealthy ones--and enjoys their suffering and misery as a marker of his superiority, and I think it is obvious such a hateful disposition is common today among Americans in powerful positions as well as the public at large who I think couldn’t care less about what has happened in Flint. There are exceptions, but there’s a reason Flannery O’Connor titled her famous short story “A Good Man Is Hard to Find.”
One could say this perspective on the Flint water crisis is a cheap-shot at faith-based worldviews and that my disgust toward our country’s attitudes isn’t doing anything to solve the problem. But I would counter that a longtime decline in scientific knowledge and approaches to problem-solving, in addition to contempt for the intellectual’s value to society are a big part of why this crisis happened and how predictably slow whatever response has been. Equally predictable has been the public relations media effort by Michigan authorities to assure the detached, already-tired-of-hearing about it public that everything is fine and dandy, as uniformed soldiers smile while handing Flint residents cases of bottled water. Don’t use your imagination for a second to think how miserable and denigrating it must be to live with bottled water indefinitely. Smile and have a positive attitude: that is the American way.
The intellectual isn’t dangerous for pointing out that popular, long-held ideas may be faulty, even completely ignorant. At worst, such realizations cause others a sense of discomfort and dent one’s ego. Big deal. No one is always right about everything; the intellectual is devoted to the realm of ideas, not trouble-making. But faith-based views, on the other hand, tend to incubate fundamentalist mentalities over time, and such a mindset works against the openness, curiosity, and empirical observance that a society must have to be scientifically functional. Lest one think intellectualism is merely logical and calculating while faith is “from the heart,” it is the scientific and intellectually-minded person that recognizes what a terrible thing it is that is happening in Flint, and how easily avoidable it was had adherence to basic scientific principles and functional governance been operational. In the meantime, the faith-based mindset insulates itself against the anger and outrage everyone ought to feel, and equates basic science with comic-book science fiction.
The harsh truth is that the faith-based mindset is first and foremost interested in coasting through a permanent la-la land, where any prolonged attention to something like the crisis in Flint must be a symptom of someone who lacks faith, who refuses to accept that everything will always be OK, that the American system, while not perfect, works, and it will get the job done, just be patient, etc. That mindset is dangerous, because from this perspective even something as truly horrific as what has happened in Flint, not to mention the mean-spirited disdain for regular citizens who need clean water to live like the rest of us, will never make any difference to how such a person sees the world or how society really works. And as long as faith-based views persist while intellectual views are ridiculed and dismissed, more crises will follow, and all the faith in the world won’t stop them.
David W. Overbey has a PhD in rhetoric and media studies. He is co-host of the Modus Operandi Podcast and the MoSports Podcast. He has fifteen years of teaching experience at universities in different regions of the country. You can contact him at badteacher515@gmail.com
Sanders Campaign has moved Clinton further to the Right, contrary to popular perception
By David W. Overbey, PhD
23 March 2016
The complacent and brain-dead media have repeated the same unquestioned claim about the Democrat primary for months, and it’s long overdue that this claim be examined and rejected: Bernie Sanders persistence and on-point message have moved “front-runner” Hillary Clinton further to the left. This claim by the media has at least two implications. One, of course, is that Clinton actually has become a more liberal candidate because of Sanders’ liberal platform. The second, and more sinister implication, is that Sanders serves no purpose as a candidate other than to motivate Clinton to adopt a more left-wing stance during the debates. This second implication is sinister because it is an example of the media not reporting the news but making the news. The idea that Bernie Sanders is the better candidate in the Democrat primary and that he could very well be our next President is an unacceptable idea, period. Start talking as though he is and suddenly that public may reconsider the assumption that Clinton is the better candidate for the Democrat Party nomination and certainly the more pragmatic choice for the candidate who could actually win in the general election.
But after the most recent Democrat primary debate in Miami last week, it is obvious to me that Sanders’ persistence in the primary contest—especially his upset victory in Michigan—has moved Clinton further to the right, not the other way around, both in terms of how she debates and her classic Republican rebuttals to Sanders’ arguments.
“He doesn’t say how he’s going to pay for it,” Clinton replies every time Sanders insists that the United States should have free health care for all and free college for all. This response is as in-your-face Republican as it gets. Such a response is anything but evidence Clinton is the least bit open to the prospect that Sanders may have some good ideas and that his platform is better than hers in some respects. For decades, every time any proposal has been brought forward in American politics in favor of a program that would benefit the people by reducing the mounting financial pressure most of us face, specifically free health care and free college, the inevitable right-wing response is that these ideas sound nice and may look good on paper but in the “real world” they won’t work because there is no way to pay for them. And what response does Clinton have when Sanders says that all other first-world countries on the planet guarantee free health care for all and have free or at least much more affordable college education? She attacks Sanders for being against Obama as though Sanders is another version of Mitch McConnell. Then she says we must continue to make the Affordable Care Act work, never mind the annoying question of what “affordable” actually means.
It is a fact, not a utopian delusion, that all other first-world countries have free health care, and there can be no argument that “free” is indeed affordable. The idea that more Americans have health insurance than before the ACA does not equate to free healthcare for all as a guaranteed right. Clinton’s insistence that the two are effectively the same makes no sense. If someone wants health care to be “affordable,” how can one do better than “free?” So why defend the ACA but argue against an opponent who wants free health care for all? Such a reply is anything but a “move to the left,” and instead gives her away as someone who really has no message or platform other than “I want to win, so vote for me.”
But Clinton’s right-wing DNA spilled out of her on-stage persona in Miami when she in effect compared Sanders to Fidel Castro. This move was as typical-ugly and dishonest as Republican politics gets. Every time someone says taxes need to be raised and should be spent on improving the lives of the tax payers instead of interventionist, regime-changing wars, the dumbed-down bogus retort has been to align such a position with being socialist, which is the same thing more or less as being communist, which is, of course, un-American and therefore plain wrong.
I’m not going to listen to rebuttals that Clinton didn’t equate Sanders with Castro, the Communist dictator of Cuba from whom many Miamians fled because of his oppressive governing. When a Latin, Spanish-speaking journalist showed footage of Sanders in the 1980s arguing that Cuba had a good health care and education system, the message was that Sanders was sympathetic to—if not a disciple of—Fidel Castro as an oppressive dictator. Clinton could have taken the high road—as Sanders has with regard to the Clinton email soap opera—and denounced such a comparison. She didn’t. The media fed her an opportunity to disgrace Sanders as a Communist and an oppressive dictator in-waiting because he has campaigned on free health care and free college education for all. Republicans have dominated American politics by associating such policies with dictator governments and tax-and-spend “big government” that Americans don’t want. Clinton is banking on the expectation that the American public will once again agree with this version of reality, based on the ignorant and self-centered assumption that the “real world” consists of only one country, and that the other countries that really do have these programs may as well be fantasy worlds.
Meanwhile, Sanders has been measured in his criticism of Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war, a fact that cannot be denied. The Iraq war was, of course, orchestrated by the Bush-Cheney administration, and Clinton’s support of that war makes for a strong case that she is at the core a Republican conservative. There was nothing “moderate” about the Bush-Cheney era, and either Clinton supporters secretly still believe that war was justified or they dismiss her vote in favor of it as merely one of many things she has done in her political career, a view that betrays a cavalier attitude about the cost of war and the “real world” destruction it inevitably wrecks on human lives.
Furthermore, Clinton’s argument that she is the better candidate because of her experience, particularly in foreign affairs, is also a tried-and-true Republican tactic: America is the leader of the free world, and foreign policy always trumps domestic policy. Americans get what they deserve, and to argue the American government ought to work for the American people is a weak-minded complaint of lazy people, not a sensible position. It is maddening that after the 2008 economic collapse and the never-ending futility of America’s interventionist foreign policy that someone who insists the status quo is still the way to go is considered to be a liberal who over the course of the debates has moved even further to the left. If, in fact, Clinton is compelled by Sanders’ platform, how can she be his opponent? And how in the world can the media depict someone who argues against free health care for all and free college because “there’s no way to pay for it; he doesn’t say how he’s going to pay for it” as someone who leans further to left with the conclusion of each debate? The media have covered the Democrat primary as though they were state-controlled appendages of an oppressive society that values the ability to deceive over a well-informed citizenry.
As for the results of the primaries and caucuses thus far, there is further evidence that Clinton is a Republican conservative who appeals to the values of that ideology. Clinton has won 12 states to Sanders’ 9. But a look at the geography shows that Clinton wins, or rather dominates, in the South, the stronghold of the Republican Party, and without question the least progressive region of a chronically conservative nation, with a few exceptions. Sanders has won in New England and the North, places that are politically more liberal than the South, and in the West, where independents and libertarians are more prominent than fundamentalist conservatives whose views will, apparently, never change, no matter what. Thus, it is consistent with the argument that Clinton is a conservative who appeals to Republican-minded voters that she would be popular in the South, while Sanders wins in the other regions, his most notable win being the upset in Michigan, which borders Canada, that is, not in the South, for those of you who think education is a waste of time.
There is an obvious explanation for Clinton’s politics, her debate tactics, and the media’s representation of her as a liberal who has moved further left due to Sanders’ token existence as a Presidential candidate. Both Clinton and the media are owned by big-money corporations, and the last thing they want is someone like Sanders and his message to be taken seriously, let alone become agreeable. A President Sanders is something the corporations, Wall Street, investment banks, and even the power players of the Democratic National Committee are determined not to let happen. Characterizing Clinton as a liberal who has moved further to the left during the primary campaign is a strategy of deception aimed at conning Sanders supporters to see her as more similar to their favored candidate rather than the polar opposite which she actually is. The media, meanwhile, as always, tell the story that the rich and powerful want to be told: someone like Sanders is un-American in his views, and his platform is an incalculably expensive utopian fantasy that is impossible to achieve, the reality of how all other first-world countries have governed for decades be damned.
Clinton obviously appeals to a large number of Americans whose dumbed-down idea of a “liberal” is anyone who is not a while male, and people who will always think that one can vote for a war George W. Bush and Dick Cheney sold to the American people, oppose free health care and free college, and still somehow qualify as a liberal and an unequivocal superior choice to the Republican nominee. But even the pragmatic argument that Clinton is more electable in a general election than Sanders is contradicted by polls that show otherwise and the geographic concentration of Clinton’s victories in the one region in the country the Democrats have zero chance of winning in a general election.
While Sanders has been diplomatic and measured in his debates with Clinton, a characteristic of a more liberal, enlightened mind, Clinton has resorted to explicit attacks of Sanders that cannot be construed as anything but Republican. Sanders, according to Clinton, wants “big government” and advocates a utopian system that is too expensive to pay for. America is so great, as conservatives always say, that it is disloyal to characterize it in need of a “revolution.” Foreign policy and experience in foreign affairs—in other words always being up for another war and rigidly defensive about those that grind on tirelessly—are the trademark of someone most qualified to be President, not someone who thinks the American government ought to work for the American people, a position Republicans always take in defense of a system where “anyone can achieve anything,” as though that idea doesn’t sound utopian.
Most maddening of all is the apparent success of Clinton’s campaign and her debate strategy and the media’s characterization of her as a liberal who has moved further left during the debates. Clinton’s success and seemingly indestructible status as primary front-runner make at least me wonder why people who so outspokenly denounce the GOP as puerile bullies and “the party of no” support a candidate who in recent weeks has shown herself to be a Republican conservative, someone who thinks America’s purpose is to fight wars and whose national identity would implode should this nation actually admit other countries do a better job of taking care of her own than we do.
After a not terribly impressive start to the 21st century, the Democrat primary has essentially been reduced to the semi-finals of the Republican general election. I take no solace in the notion that Clinton is the best Republican to choose from.
Dr. David W. Overbey is an essayist, fiction writer, and playwright who has a PhD in rhetoric and media studies. He is co-host of the Modus Operandi Podcast and the MoSports Podcast. He also has fifteen years teaching experience at universities in different regions across the country. He can be contacted at badteacher515@gmail.com.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Calipari heyday is over after miserable IU loss
Calipari heyday is over after miserable IU loss
21 March 2016
By Dr. David W. Overbey
The 2012 Championship season seems like a long time ago.
Last Saturday's NCAA Tournament loss to longtime border rival Indiana is without question the low point in the John Calipari era and one of the worst losses in UK basketball history. No doubt this team was not one of Calipari's most talented but the issue here is the woeful performance, specifically the lack of offensive production and three-point shooting. All season the question-mark for this edition was the frontline, while the backcourt of Tyler Ulis and Jamal Murray was hyped as the best backcourt in college basketball. Yet, it was that backcourt that floundered when performance mattered the most.
Ulis racked up a lot of points, but didn't get the rest of the team involved the way a highly touted point guard is supposed to. And Murray had his worst game of the season, a sickening 1-of-9 performance from the three-point line. The frontline reverted to the lackluster version we saw in UK's ugly losses to bad UCLA, Ohio State, Auburn, and Tennessee teams. Before I go further with my observations on the status of the UK program, let me point out what I saw going wrong in the seasoning-ending, brick-laying loss to IU.
The disappearance of Derek Willis
UK became a more dynamic offensive team when Calipari finally realized he needed more than two players on the floor who were threats to score and inserted junior Derek Willis into the starting lineup. Willis answered the call, hitting 44% from three-point range, and knocking down seven three-pointers in a home victory over Tennesssee. Willis injured his ankle in a road game against Vanderbilt and missed a couple of games. But he appeared recovered and healthy soon after, hitting a three-pointer to give UK the lead for good in overtime against Texas A&M in the SEC Championship game.
Yet for some reason, Willis was consigned to a reserve role come NCAA tournament time, while Calipari re-inserted the over-hyped and erratic freshman center Skal Labissiere as a starter for the most important part of the season. Willis did not enter the game against IU until past the midpoint of the first half. He took only one three-pointer, which he missed, and did not score.
But more importantly, it appeared neither Willis' teammates nor Coach Calipari seemed interested in getting Willis involved in the offensive. I don't recall a single play where UK was looking to set up Willis for a good look from three--even when it was obvious that IU coach Tom Crean's defensive strategy was to smother Murray, something Calipari should have seen coming. A big part of Murray's late-season scoring binge, I think, is that he was on the floor with Willis at the same time, giving UK two three-point threats plus a point guard who could score. Opposing defenses couldn't take the simple strategy of focusing only on Murray, as Willis consistently knocked down open threes.
With his team struggling to score and get untracked from three-point range, the beginning of the second half gave every indication it was going to be UK's last of the season. Willis began the half on the bench, and Calipari decided that UK would establish Labissiere down-low, a decision that obviously ignored how the two players had performed over the course of the season. Fittingly, Labissiere missed a close-in shot; IU scored inside; Alex Poythress travelled; and IU hit a three-pointer. A one-point UK deficit at halftime was now a 38-32 IU lead, and the Hoosiers had control of the game from that point on. UK did rally with threes by Murray (his only one of the game) and Ulis, followed by a steal and layup by Poythress (his ONLY field goal of the game), but that was UK's last flash of good basketball.
To sum up: with a team that played its best basketball with Willis and Murray in the starting lineup, UK began the second half against IU with Willis on the bench. With its obvious strength being its backcourt, Calipari's strategy to start the second half was to pound the ball inside with the result being a miss and a turnover, hardly surprising for a team whose frontcourt was never its strength and always inconsistent.
Not having Willis as a main option offensively made zero sense, and his absence as someone to establish offensively was compounded by the pipe-dream that Labissiere was finally going to turn into the all-world player he was touted as being. These lineup choices ignored how Labissiere and Willis performed. Labissiere woefully underachieved; meanwhile, when his chance came, Willis played as well if not better than expected. Labissiere did have a good game agaisnt LSU in UK's regular season finale, but LSU was a woefully underachieving team, and that one-game performance alone should not have outweighed the season-long performance of a player who at best was inconsistent, and at times looked totally over-matched against opponents' big men and clueless about how to play basketball.
UK lacked confidence and energy
A coach cannot control how well his players play. He can't make the three-pointers go in, or 6'11'' players hit shots within 10 feet of the basket. But come NCAA tournament time, this UK team did not look confident or play as though it had the mentality it was going to win. IU is of course a good team, but they were also beatable. UK played timid, and during stretches of the first half when they had the lead, the Wildcats never showed the energy and consistency that would have given them command of the game. IU, on the other hand, played with increasing energy and confidence in the second half. Once it got the lead, IU played as though they knew they were going to beat UK. I would attribute UK's lack of confidence and energy to the inexplicable absence of Willis as a main offensive factor, and the mounting pressure Murray faced as one three-pointer after another clanged off the rim, and no other offensive presence emerged.
Has John Calipari turned into Tubby Smith?
Discounting the formality of UK's first-round blowout of over-matched Stony Brook in the first round, here are the point totals of UK's last three meaningful NCAA games: 68 in a regional final win over Notre Dame; 64 in the stunning loss to Wisconsin, and 67 in the loss to IU. Notice that in all three games, UK could not manage to break 70 points. How has this happened? When UK faced IU in its 2012 championship run, the final was a 102-90 UK win. That team could score when it needed to and won a game that was an offensive shootout. Defense alone does not win championships. Winning teams shoot the ball well from three-point range, attack the opponent with multiple offensive threats, and score the ball in the games that matter most. That means NCAA tournament games against opponents who are going to put points on the board.
But even with a roster loaded with NBA lottery picks last year, UK played like a team with modest offensive ability, a team that wanted to slow the game down and win with rebounding and defense, the forlorn style of play that characterized the Tubby Smith era. Why make it a point to get the very top recruits every year who will go one-and-done to the NBA and then play as though if the score gets into the stratospheric 70s that puts your team at a disadvantage?
Next year is put up or shut up time for Calipari
I've said before that the knock on Calipari that he can recruit but can't coach is unfair. And--up until the disastrous loss to Wisconsin in an abrupt end to a dominant, undefeated season--I think Calipari had done an excellent job of coaching, especially in NCAA tournament games. He won four high-pressure, close games against very good opponents to get UK to the Final Four in 2011. He had to face arch-rival Louisville and beat them a second time in the Final Four en route to the 2012 NCAA title. And in 2014, he took a talented but somewhat underachieving team on an impressive run to the NCAA title game--again winning four high-pressure, very close games against very good opponents. And again he had to beat Louisville for a second time, this time in the regional semi-finals. But in those three seasons, UK shot the ball well from three-point range and did not play as though a high scoring game was the type of game they wanted to avoid. Aaron Harrison's clutch three-pointers in the last minute of wins against Louisville, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the 2014 tournament showed why it makes sense to recruit the most talented players in the country and unleash them as an offensive force, not a tentative unit that tightens up when the have the ball.
Maybe this year was destined to be a hangover year for UK after arguably the most disappointing ending to a season in the history of its esteemed basketball program. But even making that concession, next year there will be no patience for the team if it underachieves and demonstrates a puzzling aversion to playing offense and a three-point attack that at best relies on a single player every game to get hot. Calipari must take another heralded group of recruits and get them to be an offensive force that can win high scoring games and has the confidence to win when the stakes are highest.
But this year also showed that too much is made of players' hype and reputation before they've played a single college game, let alone faced the pressure of NCAA tournament play. The group coming in next year is touted as one of Calipari's best classes--a collection of players who are talented and can score, an assortment of really good guards and front line players. But that was the same reputation this year's team had, and Labissiere in particular showed how reputation and performance can be as far apart as a second-round loss and a spot in the Final Four.
UK teams have a rich history of home-grown players who went under the recruiting radar but turned out to be pivotal contributors to championship teams: Scott Padgett, Cameron Mills, and Anthony Epps all won titles, and Travis Ford lead UK to the 1993 Final Four. None of those players were All-Universe recruits. The Pelphrey, Feldhaus, and Farmer trio from 1992 nearly pulled off the biggest upset in NCAA history, were it not for the heart-breaking conclusion to the regional final against Duke. I bring this up because the one thing all of these players had in common was they could really shoot the three. They hit clutch threes in NCAA tournament games and always played with the determination and energy that shine on winning teams. If UK is going to be a fixture in the Final Four for seasons to come, it will need to regain exceptional three-point shooting and offensive proficiency. Those qualities have been lacking in the last two seasons--a bizarre reality given how deep and talented the 2015 edition was, and a disappointing reality given how obviously over-hyped and undermanned the 2016 team was, especially with a home-grown three-point specialist not getting involved in the offense when the team struggled to score.
Whatever may be said about Calipari's recruiting and coaching, it doesn't hurt to have players whose forte is to drill three-pointers and score a lot of points. A day after the IU loss, Kyle Wiltjer, who transferred to Gonzaga from UK after his sophomore year hit more threes against Utah in the first four minutes of the game than UK managed as a team the entire game against IU. It's no coincidence that Gonzaga is a hot team streaking into the Sweet 16 while UK has nothing to do but talk about how great it will be next year. We'll see.
Dr. David W. Overbey is co-host of the Modus Operandi podcast and the MoSports podcast along with Alan Miller and the Institute for Psychic Reform Studios. Dr. Overbey can be reached at badteacher515@gmail.com.
21 March 2016
By Dr. David W. Overbey
The 2012 Championship season seems like a long time ago.
Last Saturday's NCAA Tournament loss to longtime border rival Indiana is without question the low point in the John Calipari era and one of the worst losses in UK basketball history. No doubt this team was not one of Calipari's most talented but the issue here is the woeful performance, specifically the lack of offensive production and three-point shooting. All season the question-mark for this edition was the frontline, while the backcourt of Tyler Ulis and Jamal Murray was hyped as the best backcourt in college basketball. Yet, it was that backcourt that floundered when performance mattered the most.
Ulis racked up a lot of points, but didn't get the rest of the team involved the way a highly touted point guard is supposed to. And Murray had his worst game of the season, a sickening 1-of-9 performance from the three-point line. The frontline reverted to the lackluster version we saw in UK's ugly losses to bad UCLA, Ohio State, Auburn, and Tennessee teams. Before I go further with my observations on the status of the UK program, let me point out what I saw going wrong in the seasoning-ending, brick-laying loss to IU.
The disappearance of Derek Willis
UK became a more dynamic offensive team when Calipari finally realized he needed more than two players on the floor who were threats to score and inserted junior Derek Willis into the starting lineup. Willis answered the call, hitting 44% from three-point range, and knocking down seven three-pointers in a home victory over Tennesssee. Willis injured his ankle in a road game against Vanderbilt and missed a couple of games. But he appeared recovered and healthy soon after, hitting a three-pointer to give UK the lead for good in overtime against Texas A&M in the SEC Championship game.
Yet for some reason, Willis was consigned to a reserve role come NCAA tournament time, while Calipari re-inserted the over-hyped and erratic freshman center Skal Labissiere as a starter for the most important part of the season. Willis did not enter the game against IU until past the midpoint of the first half. He took only one three-pointer, which he missed, and did not score.
But more importantly, it appeared neither Willis' teammates nor Coach Calipari seemed interested in getting Willis involved in the offensive. I don't recall a single play where UK was looking to set up Willis for a good look from three--even when it was obvious that IU coach Tom Crean's defensive strategy was to smother Murray, something Calipari should have seen coming. A big part of Murray's late-season scoring binge, I think, is that he was on the floor with Willis at the same time, giving UK two three-point threats plus a point guard who could score. Opposing defenses couldn't take the simple strategy of focusing only on Murray, as Willis consistently knocked down open threes.
With his team struggling to score and get untracked from three-point range, the beginning of the second half gave every indication it was going to be UK's last of the season. Willis began the half on the bench, and Calipari decided that UK would establish Labissiere down-low, a decision that obviously ignored how the two players had performed over the course of the season. Fittingly, Labissiere missed a close-in shot; IU scored inside; Alex Poythress travelled; and IU hit a three-pointer. A one-point UK deficit at halftime was now a 38-32 IU lead, and the Hoosiers had control of the game from that point on. UK did rally with threes by Murray (his only one of the game) and Ulis, followed by a steal and layup by Poythress (his ONLY field goal of the game), but that was UK's last flash of good basketball.
To sum up: with a team that played its best basketball with Willis and Murray in the starting lineup, UK began the second half against IU with Willis on the bench. With its obvious strength being its backcourt, Calipari's strategy to start the second half was to pound the ball inside with the result being a miss and a turnover, hardly surprising for a team whose frontcourt was never its strength and always inconsistent.
Not having Willis as a main option offensively made zero sense, and his absence as someone to establish offensively was compounded by the pipe-dream that Labissiere was finally going to turn into the all-world player he was touted as being. These lineup choices ignored how Labissiere and Willis performed. Labissiere woefully underachieved; meanwhile, when his chance came, Willis played as well if not better than expected. Labissiere did have a good game agaisnt LSU in UK's regular season finale, but LSU was a woefully underachieving team, and that one-game performance alone should not have outweighed the season-long performance of a player who at best was inconsistent, and at times looked totally over-matched against opponents' big men and clueless about how to play basketball.
UK lacked confidence and energy
A coach cannot control how well his players play. He can't make the three-pointers go in, or 6'11'' players hit shots within 10 feet of the basket. But come NCAA tournament time, this UK team did not look confident or play as though it had the mentality it was going to win. IU is of course a good team, but they were also beatable. UK played timid, and during stretches of the first half when they had the lead, the Wildcats never showed the energy and consistency that would have given them command of the game. IU, on the other hand, played with increasing energy and confidence in the second half. Once it got the lead, IU played as though they knew they were going to beat UK. I would attribute UK's lack of confidence and energy to the inexplicable absence of Willis as a main offensive factor, and the mounting pressure Murray faced as one three-pointer after another clanged off the rim, and no other offensive presence emerged.
Has John Calipari turned into Tubby Smith?
Discounting the formality of UK's first-round blowout of over-matched Stony Brook in the first round, here are the point totals of UK's last three meaningful NCAA games: 68 in a regional final win over Notre Dame; 64 in the stunning loss to Wisconsin, and 67 in the loss to IU. Notice that in all three games, UK could not manage to break 70 points. How has this happened? When UK faced IU in its 2012 championship run, the final was a 102-90 UK win. That team could score when it needed to and won a game that was an offensive shootout. Defense alone does not win championships. Winning teams shoot the ball well from three-point range, attack the opponent with multiple offensive threats, and score the ball in the games that matter most. That means NCAA tournament games against opponents who are going to put points on the board.
But even with a roster loaded with NBA lottery picks last year, UK played like a team with modest offensive ability, a team that wanted to slow the game down and win with rebounding and defense, the forlorn style of play that characterized the Tubby Smith era. Why make it a point to get the very top recruits every year who will go one-and-done to the NBA and then play as though if the score gets into the stratospheric 70s that puts your team at a disadvantage?
Next year is put up or shut up time for Calipari
I've said before that the knock on Calipari that he can recruit but can't coach is unfair. And--up until the disastrous loss to Wisconsin in an abrupt end to a dominant, undefeated season--I think Calipari had done an excellent job of coaching, especially in NCAA tournament games. He won four high-pressure, close games against very good opponents to get UK to the Final Four in 2011. He had to face arch-rival Louisville and beat them a second time in the Final Four en route to the 2012 NCAA title. And in 2014, he took a talented but somewhat underachieving team on an impressive run to the NCAA title game--again winning four high-pressure, very close games against very good opponents. And again he had to beat Louisville for a second time, this time in the regional semi-finals. But in those three seasons, UK shot the ball well from three-point range and did not play as though a high scoring game was the type of game they wanted to avoid. Aaron Harrison's clutch three-pointers in the last minute of wins against Louisville, Michigan, and Wisconsin in the 2014 tournament showed why it makes sense to recruit the most talented players in the country and unleash them as an offensive force, not a tentative unit that tightens up when the have the ball.
Maybe this year was destined to be a hangover year for UK after arguably the most disappointing ending to a season in the history of its esteemed basketball program. But even making that concession, next year there will be no patience for the team if it underachieves and demonstrates a puzzling aversion to playing offense and a three-point attack that at best relies on a single player every game to get hot. Calipari must take another heralded group of recruits and get them to be an offensive force that can win high scoring games and has the confidence to win when the stakes are highest.
But this year also showed that too much is made of players' hype and reputation before they've played a single college game, let alone faced the pressure of NCAA tournament play. The group coming in next year is touted as one of Calipari's best classes--a collection of players who are talented and can score, an assortment of really good guards and front line players. But that was the same reputation this year's team had, and Labissiere in particular showed how reputation and performance can be as far apart as a second-round loss and a spot in the Final Four.
UK teams have a rich history of home-grown players who went under the recruiting radar but turned out to be pivotal contributors to championship teams: Scott Padgett, Cameron Mills, and Anthony Epps all won titles, and Travis Ford lead UK to the 1993 Final Four. None of those players were All-Universe recruits. The Pelphrey, Feldhaus, and Farmer trio from 1992 nearly pulled off the biggest upset in NCAA history, were it not for the heart-breaking conclusion to the regional final against Duke. I bring this up because the one thing all of these players had in common was they could really shoot the three. They hit clutch threes in NCAA tournament games and always played with the determination and energy that shine on winning teams. If UK is going to be a fixture in the Final Four for seasons to come, it will need to regain exceptional three-point shooting and offensive proficiency. Those qualities have been lacking in the last two seasons--a bizarre reality given how deep and talented the 2015 edition was, and a disappointing reality given how obviously over-hyped and undermanned the 2016 team was, especially with a home-grown three-point specialist not getting involved in the offense when the team struggled to score.
Whatever may be said about Calipari's recruiting and coaching, it doesn't hurt to have players whose forte is to drill three-pointers and score a lot of points. A day after the IU loss, Kyle Wiltjer, who transferred to Gonzaga from UK after his sophomore year hit more threes against Utah in the first four minutes of the game than UK managed as a team the entire game against IU. It's no coincidence that Gonzaga is a hot team streaking into the Sweet 16 while UK has nothing to do but talk about how great it will be next year. We'll see.
Dr. David W. Overbey is co-host of the Modus Operandi podcast and the MoSports podcast along with Alan Miller and the Institute for Psychic Reform Studios. Dr. Overbey can be reached at badteacher515@gmail.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)