Is Miami's 19-Point Win Versus San Antonio Historically Significant?

Miami's 19-point victory on Sunday was the largest margin of victory in a Finals series in the past three seasons. Somehow, the series seemed to have tilted way in favor of the Heat in a little more than a quarter's worth of playing time. The blowout victory was a revelation for the Heat, who made the necessary adjustments in the second half to take a commanding lead on the way to winning Game 2. With the series tied at 1-1, Game 3 has historically been the pivotal game on which a Finals series hinges.  

Can margin of victory predict the Finals winner?

As CBS sports columnist Gregg Doyel wrote, "Since the NBA Finals went to the 2-3-2 format in 1985, the series has been tied 12 times entering Game 3. In those 12 series, the Game 3 winner has gone on to be the champion 11 times."  That's a stat worth paying attention to, or maybe it's a stat just stating the obvious; that championships are not necessarily caused by winning Game 3 itself, but rather in the probability that the better team will win more games. Game 3, all things being equal, has a greater chance of  being won by the better team, and therefore, why the champion wins Game 3 more often than the loser.   

So how about turning our attention to margin of victory? Does the margin of victory in a single NBA Finals game provide a clue into who will win the championship? 

The thinking is that the better team will have a more dominant performance that manifests itself in larger margins of victory. After all, it's rare that an eventual champion would lose in a blowout if they indeed are the better team. Great teams humble lesser teams, and lesser teams rarely have the firepower to beat great teams by more than what great teams can beat them by over the course of a seven-game series. 

Looking at margin of victory data going back to the 1990 NBA Finals -- a span of 23 Finals --  the team with the largest margin of victory in a single game would eventually claim the championship 19 times. 

In addition, only three champions since 1990 have lost a Finals game by more than 13 points; the 1996 Chicago Bulls (21), 2000 Los Angeles Lakers (33), and 2005 San Antonio Spurs (33). The team that lost by 13? That would be the 2006 Miami Heat who lost to the Dallas Mavericks. It should be noted that the 1996 Bulls lost Game 4 by 21 after building a 3-0 series lead against the Seattle Supersonics, and the 2000 Lakers lost Game 5 by 33 after opening up a 3-1 series lead against the Indiana Pacers. The 2005 Spurs lost Game 4 by 33 to the Detroit Pistons to make it a 2-2 series.

From the data, we can infer that if this year's version of the Spurs win the series, they will become only the fourth team since 1990 to win the championship after losing a Finals game by more than 13 points. If the Spurs do not beat the Heat in a game by 20 or more points, they will become just the 5th team in the past 24 Finals to win the championship without having the largest margin of victory in a single game. 

The data seems to suggest that better teams more often than not display the most dominant single-game performances in a series. Miami has staked a claim for most dominant performance in this series, but of course, the series is still in its infancy as the Spurs and Heat play the next three games in San Antonio.  

 

10 Most Hated College Teams

 So Uncoached.com released a list of the 10 most hated teams in sports. The list included three college teams; Ohio State football, Duke men's basketball, and Notre Dame football. It got me thinking about the college programs that people around the country really, really dislike and I ranked them. In addition to the three mentioned above, I added seven more.  

10) UConn women's basketball: The only women's team on this list!!! Nobody likes a team that has dominated for so long. 90 wins in a row? 90 FRIGGIN' wins in a row!!! Amazing, yes. But it just made you feel good to see them lose and cry, and pout, and be like 'We're UConn, what is this feeling of losing?'  And you know, there's just something about Geno Auriemma that rubs people the wrong way. I loved it when Pat Summit was winning titles, but Auriemma? The guy looks angry when his team wins by 30. 

Lane Kiffin. My blood boils. 

9)  Boise State football: I know there are many people who are fans of this perennial BCS crasher. But how many other people out there cry foul? Here's to all the people who ask "How would they do in a power conference? How many games would they lose in the SEC?" To each his own, but Boise State really started the conversation for the importance of strength of schedule in determining the top 2 teams in the BCS national championship game. For the record, I'm a fan of the Broncos. 

8) Southern Cal football: Two words: Lane Kiffin. Every time they lost last year just felt so good, didn't it?

7) Miami, Fla., football: The hatred thrown at the program stems from its renegade days in the 1980's. Some people suggest the program is still living in the past, but if that's the case, then so are all the haters who can't get enough of calling Miami "Thug U." So many people were calling for the Death Penalty liberally following the Shapiro scandal. The sanctions await. 

6) Kentucky men's basketball: John Calipari is the nation's best recruiter, but he hasn't won over many fans with his crop of one-and-done freshman sensations. His reliance on young talent paid off spectacularly with last year's national title, but some basketball purists can't stand the idea of "renting" players for one year, unless of course it's your team cutting down the nets at the end of the year. 

5) Tennessee football: You fire Phil Fulmer who was good at the beginning and bad at the end, kind of like an all-you-can-eat buffet. You gave Lane Kiffin a shot. Then he leaves you, your fans go all apocalyptic, but it's OK because you hired Derek Dooley. Plus, you gave Lane Kiffin a shot. 

Lord Voldemort, er, Saban

4) Alabama football: Roll Tide! Alabama was a broken program just six years ago. Enter Lord Saban and college football's craziest, most rabid fans have reason to get all smug again. They also claim a crazy amount of national titles, some of which are totally unjustified, most of which, begrudgingly, are completely legitimate.

3) Notre Dame football: All the history, nostalgia, and legacy from the Four Horsemen to Lou Holtz. No program has more lore than the Fighting Irish, and it's a bit annoying. Sure it's a historic program, but it's no different now than any other major college football program. Plus, there's the resentment of having their own contract with NBC and holding out of a conference. I predict the ACC is in your near future Notre Dame. 

2) Ohio State football: Only 15 years ago Ohio State was a respectable program cheered on by many people outside the state of Michigan. Then came Jim Tressel, who made the program a Big 10 powerhouse, but it came with his horrible sweater vest. Deep down you just knew Tressel was somehow...off. Then came the embarrassing losses to two SEC teams in BCS title games. The Suckeyes, I mean, Buckeyes have yet to live  those losses down. 

Cameron Indoor, home of the Dukies

1) Duke men's basketball: Blue bloods. Players on Duke teams have been called sell-outs, but all they do is keep winning ACC titles on a regular basis and reach Final Fours for Hall of Fame coach Mike Krzyzewski. After Duke won the 2010 championship people were literally outraged that they had beaten Butler. You ever seen an indignant Digger Phelps? I have. Their fans do tend to get annoying, but it's the only arena in all of sports where I catch myself paying more attention to the crowd than to the game. Is that a bad thing or a good thing?

Lance Armstrong from a Christian Perspective

In my young boys' mind I grew up thinking good athletes were successful because they were naturally good, flawless people. In turn,  I thought less of players who rarely came off the bench because if they were inferior athletes, they must have been inferior people -- with less of a desire to work hard or the willingness to make the necessary sacrifices to be successful. It's why in my youth I took it so hard when I didn't achieve athletically the way I aspired to. As I grew older that kind of thinking evaporated, but the very essence of the idea that moral people accomplish great things has always remained in my romanticized view of sports.

So when Lance Armstrong's interview finally aired and I was able to digest the meaning of yet another sports hero brought down by scandal, my reaction went from one of sadness and disappointment, to one of hope and joy.

I'm not used to writing about sports from a Christian perspective, but I couldn't help but think of the many ways that Armstrong's story parallels so many of the characters in the Bible who distance themselves from God. 

Lance Armstrong made history on his own. But at what price?

By his own account, Armstrong did things his way. His use of performance-enhancing drugs led him to seven consecutive Tour de France titles, a fortune, worldwide celebrity, and becoming an icon as a survivor and philanthropist in the fight against cancer. He became what so many of us can only dream of, and then some. Armstrong did pretty well on his own. He elicited pride from cancer survivors, Americans, war veterans, and sports fans spanning the globe. But his empire was built on the idea of himself. As he would say in the interview with Oprah, "I was used to controlling everything in my life. I controlled every outcome in my life." 

Therein lies Armstrong's mistake -- we are not in control of our lives. God is in control, and when we do not acknowledge the presence of God in our life, the fall is devastating and damning.

In his interview Armstrong revealed that he was "deeply flawed," a "bully," and described himself as full of "arrogance." None of this is surprising, in fact, as we sit in front of our computers and televisions and admonish a human who is by nature flawed and sinful, can't we look at ourselves and say the same thing?

For me to turn Armstrong into a pariah so that I can categorize him in my mind as another wrongdoer in a world that is full of wrongdoing, would simply turn me into an even bigger hypocrite than I already am. Who am I to judge this man for all his shortcomings, when I am just as guilty of being a flawed creature who strays from God's word on a daily basis? 

I hope Armstrong makes amends with those he has hurt. With an open heart, that he make amends and recognize that not only has he been a flawed person, but that he will forever be flawed, and the only way for any kind of change is to begin a conversation with God. As much as he thought he was in control, Armstrong never was and never will be. The events leading up to his admission of PED use and last night's interview is a testament to his lack of control.  

I would also pray that our society be quick to forgive, and that as much as we are guilty of building up our celebrities, that we disassociate ourselves from idol worship. Placing our beliefs and hopes in fellow humans only leads to disillusionment, lies, and a void where God should have been all along. 

When I read Psalm 4:1-4 I can only think of how Armstrong for so long lied to everyone, and how the people he has affected are now quick to condemn and slow to forgive. Yet, within the same passage is a hope of redemption for Armstrong -- in prayer. 

"Answer me when I call, O God who declares me innocent. Take away my distress. Have mercy on me and hear my prayer. 

How long will you people ruin my reputation? How long will you make these groundless accusations? How long will you pursue lies? 

You can be sure of this: The Lord has set apart the godly for himself. The Lord will answer when I call him. 

Don't sin by letting anger gain control over you. Think about it overnight and remain silent."

The Joys of Sport

I was recently on vacation in Miami when I stopped by a friend's house who was having a going away party for his brother. My friend is a big sports fan so I was expecting there to be some competition when he told me they were going to be playing pool volleyball and basketball. I told him I'd drop in, and as the day passed by and my wife and I spent the day together, we saw that dark clouds were forming and we could see lightning and hear thunder. I wondered if the barbecue had moved indoors.

Michael Phelps is the greatest athlete I've ever seen. That's all.

In my mind I figured the going away party had been dampened by the weather, and by the time we got to my friend's house, it was pouring rain. We went to his backyard, and to my surprise there was a raucous 4 on 4 pool volleyball game going on. My friend was in the pool, and so were a number of his friends whose faces I recognized from many years before.

In the middle of a thunderstorm, these guys were out there laughing and screaming and playing. It was one of the most joyous sporting events I had ever attended.

Sometimes I feel like the sports I fell in love with as a kid is just an illusion. In fact, it's more than a feeling, I know it's an illusion.  I know that as much as sports have shaped my life, that the mainstream sports that I consume on a day-to-day basis are a ruined version of the innocent vision I once had. That's just part of growing up. I still appreciate amazing athletic performances -- those that come under pressure, those that only a select few in the world can perform, and some that are just outright inspiring.

But I find myself guilty of paying too much attention to sports teams and athletes. These same athletes will say that sports is just a "business." And it's true, but alas, sports are so wonderfully disguised. I certainly am not as moved or inspired by the CFO or CEO of Apple, as I am by watching LeBron James win his first title, or watching an athlete like Michael Phelps not just transcending his sport, but leaving us wondering about the possibilities for all athletes everywhere in every sport. 

So much of what I love about sports now goes along with false role models, sex, drugs, egos, and greed; just to name a few things. I know this because I see it and because I've been in the business. I still love watching sports, but I'm moving to a point where I can truly see them for what they are, and not what I hope them to be.
  
Still, I'm not so cynical to not appreciate the joy I saw when a bunch of guys who had done some growing up were playing pool volleyball in the middle of a rainstorm and nothing seemed more important -- or fun.

Penn State Has Been Hit by the NCAA Atomic Bomb

There used to be statues dedicated to Joe Paterno.

About three years ago I was having dinner in New Orleans with a group of sports administrators who were in town for a volunteer trip. One of them was a retired athletic director for academic advising at Penn State. She asked me, "Do you know what they call Penn State?" I had an idea where she was headed but I replied, "I'm not sure, what?" She said, "They call it Happy Valley. Do you know why?" I said, "No, why?" She said, "The name says it all. It truly is a very happy place." She went on to talk about the university and how wonderful people were there. She talked about how Penn State was one of the first schools to have a Life Skills department for its student-athletes. She even gushed about the football team winning the 1986 national title against Miami. The conversation was a pleasant one, but it left me feeling uneasy. I mean certainly, not everything in Happy Valley could truly be happy, right? Last November we found out that it wasn't, and today we found out that Penn State football as we know it is forever altered.
The sanctions destroyed Penn State's legacy and its future. Penn State football will be irrelevant for what may be up to a decade, if not longer. Joe Paterno is no longer the winningest coach in Division I-A / FBS history. The 60 million dollars that will go to external funds for victims of sexual abuse, which is a great sanction that benefits the victims of this tragedy, will not only take away from the football program, but also from all the other sports programs that football helps fund. The reduction of scholarships means that fewer young adults will have the opportunity to attend college and represent Penn State.
In many ways this was worse than the death penalty, because Penn State football will continue to exist as a shadow of its former self, and we will all be spectators to its fall from grace. We will all see the Michigans and Ohio States of the world demolish Penn State and we won't be left wondering if it was because of poor recruiting or coaching, we'll all know it was because of a child molester who lurked in the shadows of Beaver Stadium. Penn State's humiliation will be a years-long public spectacle.
I hope these sanctions serve as a warning to other schools that football cannot take precedence over an institution's academic purpose. That these sanctions will provide some kind of relief for the victims of Jerry Sandusky, and that administrators will think twice about covering up any crime, especially those as heinous as Sandusky's.
Yet I cannot help but look at the NCAA people as a bunch of hypocrites. It relied solely on the Freeh Report to dole out its sanctions, without conducting any kind of real investigation on its own. The organization harps on the importance of keeping football from becoming an institution's priority, yet year-after-year the NCAA stands to gain billions of dollars from multi-year football contracts leveraged by programs like Penn State. It also continues to punish innocent student-athletes that had nothing to do with crimes committed by men of higher authority who failed them. The NCAA is losing sight of itself. The money in college sports has become too great for the NCAA to keep pretending that there isn't an incentive for programs to cheat and sink to the lowest depths of humanity. The sad truth is that ethics, morality, and virtues don't stand a chance when there is money to be made. Penn State deserved a stiff punishment, but the NCAA needs to take a look at itself and wonder if it has become that monster it aims to punish.
I'm sure that there are people in Penn State who are hurting at their core. Like the athletic director told me a few years ago, Penn State was a happy place for a lot of great people, but now comes the self-reflection and finding out truly, what makes a place "happy?"

Joe Paterno is not Jerry Sandusky

Let me be clear here. Joe Paterno was disastrously wrong for his lack of action in dealing with Jerry Sandusky. It's funny to hear all these talking heads who make a living out of talking about sports all day, suddenly make grandiose statements about really serious matters to the extent that Paterno is as "morally culpable" as Sandusky. On one hand, Sandusky has been found guilty of sexually abusing multiple young boys through such actions as physical touching, oral sex, and anal sex. Joe Paterno did none of that, in fact, he seemed to do very little of anything. But there's a big divide between Paterno and Sandusky.

Paterno isn't around to answer the hard questions.

If Paterno was the kind of man I think he was, I don't think he would do nothing if he had been sat down and told by someone, "Look Joe, Sandusky is raping kids in our locker room, in our showers. He's using our university as his personal stomping ground to molest young boys. We've seen it, we've heard it from other people. He's using his non-profit to groom his next victims. There are kids right this second in danger of being molested by Sandusky. I think this has been going on longer than anyone can even imagine." I could be wrong, but I'd like to think that if the message had been that clear to him, that he'd see the whole thing through.
Even after the Freeh Report came out yesterday, I'm still as unclear about a lot of things as I was at the beginning, and I can't be the only person. There are a lot of questions in that report that have been left unanswered.
For one, Mike McQueary, then a Penn State graduate assistant, was not interviewed in the Freeh Report despite making repeated offers to be interviewed by investigators. This is huge because it is McQueary who first reported to Paterno that he had seen Sandusky molest a boy in the showers. What exactly, and in what terms, did McQueary tell Paterno? Then, from Paterno's discussion with McQueary, what did he tell AD Tim Curley and VP Gary Schultz? Let's stop here. This is the point in which Paterno should have been screaming like a banshee to get Sandusky investigated and prohibited from ever setting foot on the Penn State campus.
Instead, he went up to his "superiors," and let them handle it. In that instance, Paterno was no longer an effective leader. Sure, he could probably still run a football program, but he couldn't properly respond to a situation outside of his narrow scope. It should come as no wonder, but the man was nearly 75 years old at that point. Paterno should have been laying on a beach somewhere in Florida, or playing bingo, or tending to a garden, but not coaching college football.
The most damning piece of evidence is in an e-mail exchange between Schultz and Curley in which Curley says he had spoken to Paterno, and decided against going to the authorities for what McQueary had reported. What was that conversation, and what did Paterno say? Again, the Freeh Report does not make that clear and falls short in answering key questions. It leaves us assuming about many things.
What happened here? I may very well be an idiot, I may very well be a complete and utter fool, but you mean to tell me that four highly educated men all knew that Sandusky had been having sex with a 10-year-old boy in the same locker room where Penn State football players prepare to give their blood, sweat, and tears for their university and they decided to do nothing? It just doesn't make sense.
Listen, if you've read this entire thing it's my hope that you don't think I'm defending these guys. That's not the case, they turned a blind eye to a really horrible situation. My point is, did they know exactly what they were turning a blind eye to? Something happened here, something very tangible happened that resulted in the failure to report Sandusky, and the Freeh Report didn't find those answers. If everyone knew exactly what was happening, then I can't think of anything we can hold as sacred anymore. It just doesn't make sense.

Days Off to the National Title Game

50 off-days until the big stage is a bit much. i.e. 41-14

Building off of my previous post, I looked at the "true" national title games since 1980 to see what impact the number of days off had on the title game participants. What I mean by "true" is the one bowl game that would determine the national title winner, essentially a #1 vs. #2 matchup.

There were instances when if one team lost in a bowl game, then another team had the opportunity to win the title as in 1997 when Nebraska went undefeated and won the national title, and when Penn State also went undefeated but finished 2nd in both polls. Unfortunately, Penn State and Nebraska did not face each other in a "true" title game.

There are also instances as in 1983 when 5th ranked Miami defeated #1 Nebraska in the Orange Bowl and won the national title because of losses suffered by the teams ranked above them. Though the winner of the 1983 matchup resulted in the national title winner, it was not a "true" title game because outcomes outside of the game factored into the national title.

Here's what I found:

1983 Sugar Bowl - Penn State (36 days off) vs. Georgia (35 days off)

1987 Fiesta Bowl - Penn State (41 days off) vs. Miami (36 days off)

1988 Orange Bowl - Oklahoma (41 days off) vs. Miami (26 days off)

1993 Sugar Bowl - Miami (34 days off) vs. Alabama (26 days off)

1994 Orange Bowl - Nebraska (36 days off) vs. Florida State (35 days off) 

1995 Fiesta Bowl - Nebraska (39 days off) vs. Florida (30 days off)

The research was disappointing because dating back to 1980 from the first BCS game in 1998, there were only six instances in which the numbers 1 and 2 teams met for the national title. The data showed that in the six instances when #1 went up against #2, there was an even split between teams with more or less off-days. I would consider the 1983 Sugar Bowl insignificant in that Penn State had just one more day off than Georgia, but I must stick to my requirements.
However, to add on to a previous stat, since 1980 when teams have a difference of seven or more off-days in "true" national title games, the team with fewer days off has an 8-3 record. The sample size is too small for us to consider this significant, but perhaps there is something to having too many off days.
Going back to my first post regarding Ohio State, I still believe Florida was the superior team (I think that was clear considering the outcome). However, the 50 off-days that the Buckeyes had were the most of any team competing in the national title game in the last 31 years, at least. And when we consider our previous stat, it could be that they started the game at a disadvantage. I have to admit while I believe Florida was without a doubt the better team, I don't think Florida was 41-14 better, know what I mean?
I believe that the advent of conference title games for the Big 10 and the Pac 12 will make their elite teams better prepared for bowl games with national title implications.