Paul Johnson has been added to the coaching staff at Mercer.
Like new head coach Bob Hoffman, Johnson was an assistant coach for a team hit with NCAA sanctions. While Johnson was at Louisiana-Lafayette, two seasons worth of records were vacated because of academic violations that rendered a player ineligible.
The NCAA found that neither Johnson nor any other member of the basketball staff knew about the violations when they happened.
Mercer head coach Bob Hoffman was in a similar situation when he was on Kelvin Sampson's staff at Oklahoma. There, the head coach and other assistants were flouting NCAA phone call rules. Like Johnson, Hoffman was cleared, but the resulting house-cleaning left him looking for work somewhere else.
Leave it to the A-Sun to attract coaches who play by the rules, even as those around them don't.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Save the Planet? Save the People
On her blog, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says, “To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.”
If you want to fight climate change, there is a Biblical basis for doing so, but this isn't it.
For one, the idea of Creation "needing" people is completely contrary to the Bible. If anything, the reverse is true.
Likewise, the Eden argument doesn't hold up, especially since we don't live there anymore. In fact, the curse texts seem to indicate that "climate change" is an inevitable result of man's sinfulness.
In essence, if you want to save the planet, you have to change the hearts of people.
The best Biblical case I've found for environmental responsibility comes from Ezekiel 34:18-22:
"Is it too slight a thing for you that you should feed in the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pastures? Or that you should drink of the clear waters, that you must foul the rest with your feet? As for My flock, they must eat what you tread down with your feet and drink what you foul with your feet! Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them, "Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you push with side and with shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns until you have scattered them abroad, therefore, I will deliver My flock, and they will no longer be a prey; and I will judge between one sheep and another.""
The problem God has always had with pollution is not its impact on the Creation itself, but the harm it does to people. Clean water, clean and healthy food, clean air, all are essentials of life. Those who would deprive the poor of those necessities in the name of greed dishonor (and/or disobey) God far more gravely than those who fail to separate their recyclables. If you want to call on wealthy individuals, corporations, governments and societies to meet Biblical obligations, tell them to set their greed aside, provide for the poor, and protect the defenseless.
Then we can all breathe a lot easier.
If you want to fight climate change, there is a Biblical basis for doing so, but this isn't it.
For one, the idea of Creation "needing" people is completely contrary to the Bible. If anything, the reverse is true.
Likewise, the Eden argument doesn't hold up, especially since we don't live there anymore. In fact, the curse texts seem to indicate that "climate change" is an inevitable result of man's sinfulness.
In essence, if you want to save the planet, you have to change the hearts of people.
The best Biblical case I've found for environmental responsibility comes from Ezekiel 34:18-22:
"Is it too slight a thing for you that you should feed in the good pasture, that you must tread down with your feet the rest of your pastures? Or that you should drink of the clear waters, that you must foul the rest with your feet? As for My flock, they must eat what you tread down with your feet and drink what you foul with your feet! Therefore, thus says the Lord God to them, "Behold, I, even I, will judge between the fat sheep and the lean sheep. Because you push with side and with shoulder, and thrust at all the weak with your horns until you have scattered them abroad, therefore, I will deliver My flock, and they will no longer be a prey; and I will judge between one sheep and another.""
The problem God has always had with pollution is not its impact on the Creation itself, but the harm it does to people. Clean water, clean and healthy food, clean air, all are essentials of life. Those who would deprive the poor of those necessities in the name of greed dishonor (and/or disobey) God far more gravely than those who fail to separate their recyclables. If you want to call on wealthy individuals, corporations, governments and societies to meet Biblical obligations, tell them to set their greed aside, provide for the poor, and protect the defenseless.
Then we can all breathe a lot easier.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Call It A Hunch
Earlier, I thought it strange that a team could have the pre-season player of the year and pitcher of the year, yet be picked to finish tenth. If the coaches were right about Lipscomb's talent level, they had to be better than that, right?
Right.
Lipscomb is 21-18 overall, 15-9 in conference, and has a 3-game lead on Mercer in the race for the #1 seed in the conference tournament. Caleb Joseph, the afrementioned Player of the Year, is hitting .377 with an OPS pushing 1.100. Brandon McClurg has an ERA of 2.72, and has yet to allow a home run in 53 innings of work. Not bad when the hitters are holding metal bats.
The softball team is having an unexpectly good year as well, wrapping up the #1 tournament seed this weekend. The Lady Bisons are 16-6 in conference, 27-22 overall. Kim and Alaina Jacobson (no relation that I know of) have been servicable on the mound, but the story has been Abby Keese. The sophomore shortstop has been tearing the cover off the ball, hitting .349 with 14 HR's and an OPS of 1.087.
Good stuff.
Right.
Lipscomb is 21-18 overall, 15-9 in conference, and has a 3-game lead on Mercer in the race for the #1 seed in the conference tournament. Caleb Joseph, the afrementioned Player of the Year, is hitting .377 with an OPS pushing 1.100. Brandon McClurg has an ERA of 2.72, and has yet to allow a home run in 53 innings of work. Not bad when the hitters are holding metal bats.
The softball team is having an unexpectly good year as well, wrapping up the #1 tournament seed this weekend. The Lady Bisons are 16-6 in conference, 27-22 overall. Kim and Alaina Jacobson (no relation that I know of) have been servicable on the mound, but the story has been Abby Keese. The sophomore shortstop has been tearing the cover off the ball, hitting .349 with 14 HR's and an OPS of 1.087.
Good stuff.
One and Done? I'm Stunned
Really now.
I just read an article by Mitch Albom about how the NBA's draft entry rules "make a joke out of college." An espn.com article yesterday whines that top players at top programs are just using college basketball as an extended job interview.
As Bill Cosby might say, "Come on, people."
Big-time college basketball is -- and has always been -- all about the money. How much can you get, and how quickly, before demand for your services is extinguished? Whether it's players taking green handskakes from alumni, coaches making promises to players and schools then jumping when something better comes along, or conferences stacking the NCAA tournament to put the majority of CBS' money in the minority of hands, the "big time" in college basketball is a lesson in self-interest. Do what's best for you, becasue if you don't nobody will.
Now the media is up in arms because the best players are gaming the system for their own benefit? I say it's about time. Players -- particularly poor, city-dwelling, (largely) African-American players -- have been providing free entertainment for corporate junkets and subsidizing scholarships for upper-middle-class white women for decades. If the system is suddenly skewing a little bit in their favor, good. It's about time.
What's especially encouraging about Kevin Love, Michael Beasley, OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose, and the rest of them jumping to the NBA is the attention their one-year sojourn in the land of Dick Vitale is drawing to the contrasts between the "big time" and the rest of the sport. John Calipari ingratiates himself into the seemy underbelly of the Chicago AAU scene to get a player for one year, then parlays that player into a title game and a contract extension. Scott Sanderson and Rick Byrd spend a decade shepherding former NAIA powers into respectable "low-majors," all the while graduating players, turning down offers of "bigger and better," and keeping the school off both the police blotter and the NCAA radar screen.
UCLA and USC can have their one-hit wonders. Give me four years of Eddie Ard and Justin Hare every time. They are what make college basketball fun -- and worth writing about.
I just read an article by Mitch Albom about how the NBA's draft entry rules "make a joke out of college." An espn.com article yesterday whines that top players at top programs are just using college basketball as an extended job interview.
As Bill Cosby might say, "Come on, people."
Big-time college basketball is -- and has always been -- all about the money. How much can you get, and how quickly, before demand for your services is extinguished? Whether it's players taking green handskakes from alumni, coaches making promises to players and schools then jumping when something better comes along, or conferences stacking the NCAA tournament to put the majority of CBS' money in the minority of hands, the "big time" in college basketball is a lesson in self-interest. Do what's best for you, becasue if you don't nobody will.
Now the media is up in arms because the best players are gaming the system for their own benefit? I say it's about time. Players -- particularly poor, city-dwelling, (largely) African-American players -- have been providing free entertainment for corporate junkets and subsidizing scholarships for upper-middle-class white women for decades. If the system is suddenly skewing a little bit in their favor, good. It's about time.
What's especially encouraging about Kevin Love, Michael Beasley, OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose, and the rest of them jumping to the NBA is the attention their one-year sojourn in the land of Dick Vitale is drawing to the contrasts between the "big time" and the rest of the sport. John Calipari ingratiates himself into the seemy underbelly of the Chicago AAU scene to get a player for one year, then parlays that player into a title game and a contract extension. Scott Sanderson and Rick Byrd spend a decade shepherding former NAIA powers into respectable "low-majors," all the while graduating players, turning down offers of "bigger and better," and keeping the school off both the police blotter and the NCAA radar screen.
UCLA and USC can have their one-hit wonders. Give me four years of Eddie Ard and Justin Hare every time. They are what make college basketball fun -- and worth writing about.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Kobayashi Maru, or How to Referee the Last Ten Seconds
In the NC game Monday night, the referees made two pivotal no-calls in the last 10 seconds of the game. Both calls went (ostensibly) in Memphis' favor, but ended up benefiting Kansas in the long run.
1. With 10 seconds left, a Memphis player is frustrated and slams the ball into the floor. The ball bounces 20 feet in the air and skitters away. Ordinarily, this is a technical foul, but with 10 seconds left in a 62-60 game the referee lets it slide. Memphis ends that possession up 3.
2. Then, with Kansas driving to score the tying basket, Memphis tries to foul, hoping to force Kansas to shoot 2 free throws rather than a tying 3-pointer. Again, the fouls are clear to see, but no call. Kansas hits a 3-pointer with 2 seconds left and wins in OT.
Both no-calls were motivated by an unwritten axiom of officiating -- let the players decide the outcome. Swallow the whistle late in close games so that the outcome is decided by players making plays rather than by referees making calls.
But I would argue that this is ultimately a no-win situation for the referee. If he makes either or both calls, he is violating a philosophical principle. But if he swallows his whistle, he is violating the actual rules of the game, which demand that he call what he sees.
The opinion of referees varies widely over what they should do in that circumstance. But while the stated opinions of experienced referees might be many and varied, their behavior is remarkably uniform. Most swallow the whistle, choosing principle over legal code.
But what I'm interested in is not the basketball argument but the philosophical (and ultimately moral and ethical) one.
What do you do in a no-win situation? And what do the choices you make in those situations say about you?
Take, for instance, a contestant on The Price is Right. She's the first spinner in the Showcase Showdown, and she land on 70 cents. She has a choice of spinning again to try to improve her score, or standing pat and hoping for the best. If she goes over $1.00, she's eliminated immediately.
Mathematically, the risk of losing by going over $1.00 is slightly less (a 70% chance) than the risk that one of the other two players will post a better score (a 75% likelihood), so the numbers say spin. But whether it's ignorance of the math, or crowd pressure, or simply conventional wisdom, most people stand pat on 70 cents.
It's a no-win situation; no matter what she does, the poor spinner has at least a 70% chance of losing. But, like the referee above, in a situation where there is a coin-flip type choice, over 90% go the same way.
Another game show example: Over on the Jeopardy boards we talk about a FJ scenario called "Stratton's Dilemma." Basically it goes like this:
1st place: 15,000
Second place: 10,600
Third place: 6,800
The second place player has a choice to make. Do you bet enough to keep 3rd place from passing you, or do you stand pat knowing you need 1st place to be wrong to have a chance anyway and hoping the 3rd place player won't know something the 1st place player doesn't?
According to the J-archive, players in Stratton's Dilemma end up winning the game less than 10% of the time. Yet even though there is just as much mathematical reason to bet small as there is to bet big, most bet at least enough to lock out the 3rd place player.
Again, maybe this indicates ignorance of the math involved. Or maybe this reflects the mindset of a Jeopardy player, namely, "If I have to lose, I'd rather lose because I bet too much than because I bet too little."
I have no conclusions on this yet. But it is curious. Why do people in no-win situations behave so predictably? And what do the choices we make when faced with an undesirable outcome say about us?
1. With 10 seconds left, a Memphis player is frustrated and slams the ball into the floor. The ball bounces 20 feet in the air and skitters away. Ordinarily, this is a technical foul, but with 10 seconds left in a 62-60 game the referee lets it slide. Memphis ends that possession up 3.
2. Then, with Kansas driving to score the tying basket, Memphis tries to foul, hoping to force Kansas to shoot 2 free throws rather than a tying 3-pointer. Again, the fouls are clear to see, but no call. Kansas hits a 3-pointer with 2 seconds left and wins in OT.
Both no-calls were motivated by an unwritten axiom of officiating -- let the players decide the outcome. Swallow the whistle late in close games so that the outcome is decided by players making plays rather than by referees making calls.
But I would argue that this is ultimately a no-win situation for the referee. If he makes either or both calls, he is violating a philosophical principle. But if he swallows his whistle, he is violating the actual rules of the game, which demand that he call what he sees.
The opinion of referees varies widely over what they should do in that circumstance. But while the stated opinions of experienced referees might be many and varied, their behavior is remarkably uniform. Most swallow the whistle, choosing principle over legal code.
But what I'm interested in is not the basketball argument but the philosophical (and ultimately moral and ethical) one.
What do you do in a no-win situation? And what do the choices you make in those situations say about you?
Take, for instance, a contestant on The Price is Right. She's the first spinner in the Showcase Showdown, and she land on 70 cents. She has a choice of spinning again to try to improve her score, or standing pat and hoping for the best. If she goes over $1.00, she's eliminated immediately.
Mathematically, the risk of losing by going over $1.00 is slightly less (a 70% chance) than the risk that one of the other two players will post a better score (a 75% likelihood), so the numbers say spin. But whether it's ignorance of the math, or crowd pressure, or simply conventional wisdom, most people stand pat on 70 cents.
It's a no-win situation; no matter what she does, the poor spinner has at least a 70% chance of losing. But, like the referee above, in a situation where there is a coin-flip type choice, over 90% go the same way.
Another game show example: Over on the Jeopardy boards we talk about a FJ scenario called "Stratton's Dilemma." Basically it goes like this:
1st place: 15,000
Second place: 10,600
Third place: 6,800
The second place player has a choice to make. Do you bet enough to keep 3rd place from passing you, or do you stand pat knowing you need 1st place to be wrong to have a chance anyway and hoping the 3rd place player won't know something the 1st place player doesn't?
According to the J-archive, players in Stratton's Dilemma end up winning the game less than 10% of the time. Yet even though there is just as much mathematical reason to bet small as there is to bet big, most bet at least enough to lock out the 3rd place player.
Again, maybe this indicates ignorance of the math involved. Or maybe this reflects the mindset of a Jeopardy player, namely, "If I have to lose, I'd rather lose because I bet too much than because I bet too little."
I have no conclusions on this yet. But it is curious. Why do people in no-win situations behave so predictably? And what do the choices we make when faced with an undesirable outcome say about us?
Friday, April 4, 2008
Unfinished Basketball Business, Part 2
Here is my ballot for All-Conference in the Atlantic Sun this year:
Player of the Year -- Jonathan Rodriguez, Campbell.
How there is any debate on this at all is mystifying to me. Thomas Sanders won it in the official conference vote (allegedly) conducted by the coaches, and there is a case. In any other year, Sanders' numbers are POY worthy. But while Campbell wasn't exactly UCLA this year, without J-Rod this is a truly bad team. Think New Jersey Tech bad. I might rather have Justin Hare or Eddie Ard taking the big shot at the buzzer, but for the six possessions before that I want Rodriguez touching the ball.
1st Team All Conference -- Forwards: Rodriguez, Thomas Sanders (Gardner-Webb), Marcus Allen (Jacksonville). Guards: Shane Dansby (Belmont), Garfield Blair (Stetson).
Why Marcus Allen over Ben Smith? Allen posted comparable numbers to Smith, but did so in 10 fewer minutes per game. Plus, Allen was 5th in the conference in rebounding, a stat A-Sun observers often overlook but is vital to a team's success.
Why Shane Dansby over Justin Hare? 3 more rebounds per game. Note that this is "just barely," as Hare was my sixth choice for the five-man 1st team.
2nd Team All-Conference -- Forwards: Landon Adler (Florida Gulf Coast), Kevin Tiggs (ETSU), Calvin Henry (Mercer). Guards: Justin Hare (Belmont), Ben Smith (Jacksonville).
Honorable Mention -- Lehman Colbert (Jacksonville), Shaun Stegall (Kennesaw State), Eddie Ard (Lipscomb), Aaron Linn (Gardner-Webb), Grayson Flittner (Gardner-Webb), Shadeen Aaron (Mercer).
And no, I didn't forget James Florence. Nobody can miss that many shots in a year and get any post-season recognition no matter how many go in. I don;t care if you do score 19 points per game. If it takes 23 shots to get there, you're hurting your team.
If anybody has a beef with my ballot, maybe it's Courtney Pigram. I don't see the numbers to put him in the Top 20 in the conference, but I'll hear the case if anybody wants to make it.
Outstanding Freshmen -- Jordan Campbell (Belmont), Brandon Brown (Lipscomb), Ayron Hardy (Jacksonville), Nate Blank (Gardner-Webb), Adnan Hozdic (Lipscomb). Same as the conference voted there.
Coach of the Year -- No problem with Rick Byrd getting it, but I would have voted for Cliff Warren of Jacksonville, with Derek Waugh of Stetson a close second. No way I or anybody else saw that coming. Even in December, we had an idea Belmont could be special, but Jacksonville and Stetson both seriously overperformed. Well done.
Player of the Year -- Jonathan Rodriguez, Campbell.
How there is any debate on this at all is mystifying to me. Thomas Sanders won it in the official conference vote (allegedly) conducted by the coaches, and there is a case. In any other year, Sanders' numbers are POY worthy. But while Campbell wasn't exactly UCLA this year, without J-Rod this is a truly bad team. Think New Jersey Tech bad. I might rather have Justin Hare or Eddie Ard taking the big shot at the buzzer, but for the six possessions before that I want Rodriguez touching the ball.
1st Team All Conference -- Forwards: Rodriguez, Thomas Sanders (Gardner-Webb), Marcus Allen (Jacksonville). Guards: Shane Dansby (Belmont), Garfield Blair (Stetson).
Why Marcus Allen over Ben Smith? Allen posted comparable numbers to Smith, but did so in 10 fewer minutes per game. Plus, Allen was 5th in the conference in rebounding, a stat A-Sun observers often overlook but is vital to a team's success.
Why Shane Dansby over Justin Hare? 3 more rebounds per game. Note that this is "just barely," as Hare was my sixth choice for the five-man 1st team.
2nd Team All-Conference -- Forwards: Landon Adler (Florida Gulf Coast), Kevin Tiggs (ETSU), Calvin Henry (Mercer). Guards: Justin Hare (Belmont), Ben Smith (Jacksonville).
Honorable Mention -- Lehman Colbert (Jacksonville), Shaun Stegall (Kennesaw State), Eddie Ard (Lipscomb), Aaron Linn (Gardner-Webb), Grayson Flittner (Gardner-Webb), Shadeen Aaron (Mercer).
And no, I didn't forget James Florence. Nobody can miss that many shots in a year and get any post-season recognition no matter how many go in. I don;t care if you do score 19 points per game. If it takes 23 shots to get there, you're hurting your team.
If anybody has a beef with my ballot, maybe it's Courtney Pigram. I don't see the numbers to put him in the Top 20 in the conference, but I'll hear the case if anybody wants to make it.
Outstanding Freshmen -- Jordan Campbell (Belmont), Brandon Brown (Lipscomb), Ayron Hardy (Jacksonville), Nate Blank (Gardner-Webb), Adnan Hozdic (Lipscomb). Same as the conference voted there.
Coach of the Year -- No problem with Rick Byrd getting it, but I would have voted for Cliff Warren of Jacksonville, with Derek Waugh of Stetson a close second. No way I or anybody else saw that coming. Even in December, we had an idea Belmont could be special, but Jacksonville and Stetson both seriously overperformed. Well done.
Unfinished Basketball Business, Part 1
Mercer has a new coach.
The Bears hired Bob Hoffman away from the NBA D-League's Rio Grande Valley Raptors. Before that, Hoffman had been a head coach for Southern Nazarene's women, and on the men's side at Oklahoma Baptist and Texas-Pan American.
At OBU, Hoffman was known for providing a sanctuary for guys recruited to D-1 schools who didn't get the playing time they expected. His roster was almost exclusively populated with transfers from OU, Oklahoma State, Tulsa, and the like.
Hoffman takes the Mercer job after the Bears were turned down by Barry Hinson (formerly of Missouri State) and Rex Walters of former A-Sun member Florida Atlantic.
As successful as he has been on the court, however, Hoffman comes to Mercer with some baggage. In 2005, Hoffman left UT-PanAm to take a spot on Kelvin Sampson's bench at Oklahoma. There, the coaching staff was embroiled in a phone call scandal that would ultimately cost Sampson two jobs. Hoffman himself made 28 illegal calls in two seasons working under Sampson, but since most were to a long-standing family friend, the NCAA didn't ding him the way they usually do when an assistant coach is implicated in a violation.
No word yet on where Mark Slonaker will end up next year.
The Bears hired Bob Hoffman away from the NBA D-League's Rio Grande Valley Raptors. Before that, Hoffman had been a head coach for Southern Nazarene's women, and on the men's side at Oklahoma Baptist and Texas-Pan American.
At OBU, Hoffman was known for providing a sanctuary for guys recruited to D-1 schools who didn't get the playing time they expected. His roster was almost exclusively populated with transfers from OU, Oklahoma State, Tulsa, and the like.
Hoffman takes the Mercer job after the Bears were turned down by Barry Hinson (formerly of Missouri State) and Rex Walters of former A-Sun member Florida Atlantic.
As successful as he has been on the court, however, Hoffman comes to Mercer with some baggage. In 2005, Hoffman left UT-PanAm to take a spot on Kelvin Sampson's bench at Oklahoma. There, the coaching staff was embroiled in a phone call scandal that would ultimately cost Sampson two jobs. Hoffman himself made 28 illegal calls in two seasons working under Sampson, but since most were to a long-standing family friend, the NCAA didn't ding him the way they usually do when an assistant coach is implicated in a violation.
No word yet on where Mark Slonaker will end up next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
