Most observers believe this NCAA tournament ranks among the most wide open in recent memory. Bracketologist Joe Lunardi has had ten different teams move in and out of his projected one seed line over the course of a six week period. While he didn't go so far as to say was unprecedented, he did concede that he couldn't remember the last time this happened.
That fact suggests that using a dart when filling out your bracket would be as useful as studying the potential match-ups. But recent history offers hints of who you should ultimately have vie for the national title regardless of the perception that it's anyone's tournament to win. Here's a quick view of the teams that played for and ultimately won the national title over the last decade.
With the exception of UCONN in 2011, the winner was seeded third or higher and no team from outside the power 6 conferences ultimately won the national championship. Only two schools from outside the power six advanced to the title game, Butler in 2010 and 2011 and Memphis in 2008.
If you want to believe that Gonzaga or another team from outside the power six will advance to the title game, use Butler and Memphis's history in those seasons as a predictor, the Bulldogs last loss in either of those seasons came in February at the latest (In 2010, their last loss came before Christmas). Memphis's last loss in their title run season came in late February. Thus, no team who didn't dominate their conference and enter the tournament on a long winning streak advanced farther then the Final Four, and few qualified for that-VCU and George Mason are examples.
Of the 17 power 6 teams who won or played for the national championship, only five of them went undefeated through March into the tournament, less then 30%.
Of the remaining 11, 9 of them lost in their conference tournament. The other two teams, UCONN in 2011, lost in their final regular season game and Duke the year prior last lost on March 3rd.
So when choosing teams to play for the title: those outside the power six who (assuming they continue to win until selection Sunday) who meet this criteria are: Gonzaga, St. Louis, Louisana Tech and to a lesser degree based on total unusual strength of the Mountain West, New Mexico.
As for the Power Six, only one in ten won a title from outside the top 3 seeds and more then 50 percent of the time, the champion lost either in their conference tournament or within the last week of the regular season. Being that 9 of the 17 power six teams lost in their respective conference tournament means that result only matters if it changes the seed a team gets. With the lone outlier of UCONN, a team must remain a 3 seed following their conference tournament to remain in this discussion.
It begs the question, is there such a thing as a good loss in college basketball? It appears a little March Madness foreshadows a lot of March success.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Don't Ask Don't Tell The NFL
Asking the question suggests an unwritten ban remains in effect. At the most recent NFL combine, multiple unnamed teams asked
perspective draftees questions regarding their sexual preferences . It more
then suggests that teams are still uncertain how to navigate a
heterosexual dominated workplace in a new society where homosexual rights
have consistently been improving. "Don't ask Don't tell," is alive.
So how does "Don't ask Don't Tell" apply here? Federal law does not prohibit every team from asking questions about sexual identity. In fact only 12 of the 32 teams (based on the state where they reside) could be held liable for breaking employment law had they been the ones asking the players those types of questions. It also would have to be proven that said player would be discriminated against if the team knew or believed that this player was homo or bi-sexual. We don't know the purpose of asking that type of information in the combine interviews, but the insinuation is easy to make. Teams are wary of being the first to deal with an openly gay player.
The "concern" by NFL teams followed the Manti Te'o case, where the star linebacker (potentially a first round selection) was fooled into believing he was in a long term relationship with a woman he never met. He later found out that woman never existed and was the imagination of a man who was obviously infatuated with Te'o himself. Because Te'o hid the truth from the media and continued the narrative, it led to speculation that he may have known more then he admitted to and was too ashamed to admit that he could be homo or bi sexual. Te'o claims he is heterosexual which, as we have learned by the questioning at the latest combine, is the right answer to maintain league wide interest. What's most interesting about the change in dialogue regarding Te'o's prospects is the discussion point has focused less on Te'o's extraordinary level of naivete, but rather his sexual preference. The conclusion is a team is perceived to be more concerned about whether a player is gay then whether a player can be emotionally or financially duped by a con man. The latter seems on it's face more problematic.
The former Politician and Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater once said, "Just because you aren't straight doesn't mean you can't shoot straight." Common sense in a complicated argument. It seems to reason that you could surmise that just because you aren't straight doesn't mean you can run straight into the end zone. But the issue isn't that simple either.
For some context, lets look back at the history of the US military, where on this topic, progress moved at an extraordinarily slow pace. Engaging in homosexual acts were grounds for discharge in the Revolutionary War. It took until World War II before any policies on admissions to the armed services banning gays were implemented. At the time, being homosexual was deemed by the US military as a psychopathology.
In the 1940's, someone who was "caught" conducting a homosexual lifestyle while serving were labeled "Undesirable," and discharged as such. A report in the 1950's commissioned by the US Navy concluded that homosexuals serving constituted no security risk to the country, but also offered that being a Homosexual was "evil." Thus politically there remained a chasm between reason and religious belief.
The Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights movement of the 1970's brought the discussion back to the forefront. But even in the 1980's, Ronald Reagan affirmed the ban on Gays in the military. But politically, the landscape shifted when Bill Clinton took office for his first term in 1992. The Republicans chose not to fight the turning tide of Gay Rights and while some continued to argue that the "promiscuity" of the homosexual and the closed quarters and public showers utilized posed "significant psychological risk to a unit," others maintained through reports that there was no proof that being homosexual made that person unfit for military service.
So a compromise was eventually reached, even if it was flawed. "Don't ask Don't Tell" did not repeal the ban on Gays in the military, it only prevented recruiters from asking those who applied to serve about their sexual orientation. Should a homosexual be caught in a sexual act, that soldier could still be dishonorably discharged.
Undoubtedly it was a start, but it certainly fell short of equal rights. 17 years later, "Don't ask Don't Tell" was repealed. And by September of 2011, military chaplains were allowed to conduct same sex marriages if the practice was allowed by law in the state of port.
This is not to suggest that the issue is part of American history, far from it. The debate continues regarding the right to serve. But certainly progress has occurred.
So what's happened since? Has the military suffered any weaknesses now that Gays are on some level openly serving in defense of the United States of America? The answer to that question is complicated. The Washington Post reported as recently as two years ago that 66,000 homosexuals are believed to be in active duty now, but that would still be a small percentage of the over 2 million who fight. If the adage that 10 percent of the population is gay holds true, then the military has successfully thwarted off that national average in their rank and file. As for the personal safety of Americans on a daily basis: The one foreign terrorist act that occurred on American soil, 9-11, was blamed on a failure of the intelligence community. Only the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent wars would be able to disclose if they felt compromised by having a gay member in their barracks.
Back to the NFL where the league appears to be battling a sect of owners whose policy continues to predate "Don't ask Don't tell." By asking innocuous questions about whether a player "likes girls," they are in essence triggering a defense mechanism amongst the players. And there clearly is a right answer should that player hope to impress that particular team-or any team for that matter. Disclosure of what is supposed to be private moments at the combine is commonplace. Thus it's easy to assume if you tell one team you are gay, they will all know you are gay. And if they all know you are gay, you can assume some will discriminate on the basis of that knowledge.
So what are the concerns an NFL team might have with the eventual first openly Gay player?
1) Backlash within the locker room. At the past Super Bowl media day, one of the 49ers players openly said that he doesn't want "any of that sweetness" in his locker room and he surmised that the team does not have any gay players. This was in San Francisco, home to one of the most vibrant and active gay communities in the world.
2) Nudity and Comfort. Not unlike the military, homophobia in the public showers and dressing quarters appears to remain.
3) Dealing with a curious media. Can the team survive an inordinate amount of attention to this issue when it ultimately may have little to do with whether the team wins or loses. NFL teams hire PR firms to deal with such issues and hope to handle them in a way that allows them to go about the business of winning with as few distractions as possible.
Would the attention garnered bring about a number of endorsement opportunities that could cause jealousy or friction within the team?
Or is this all simply an arcane way that the teams are themselves psychologically dealing with a day they know is coming? The President openly campaigned that same sex marriage should be legalized. Don't Ask Don't Tell does not exist anymore, and Gays openly serving this country appears to be a viable end game. The stories of athletes in other sports coming out are starting to emerge with more frequency from Robbie Roberts, the US National Soccer team player to Orlando Cruz the openly gay world champion boxer to Gareth Thomas-the Gay Welsh Rugby star profiled by HBO Real Sports. Furthermore, lesbianism in women's sports is commonplace and accepted.
The last issue with Gays in the NFL revolve around fan reaction, as in, what would it be? If the military is any indication, nothing would change. Gallup releases an annual poll rating the approval of the major American institutions and their results were striking. The military ranks number one in confidence. It has never ranked below 2nd since the 1970's. Congress meantime ranks dead last, 11 percent approval as of the June 2012 release. What this proves is the people working on the policy that prohibits gays in the military receive far less of the public confidence than those who actively serve. Thus Goldwater was right on target with how the public feels and thus it's safe to believe that a Gay football player wouldn't change the Sunday ratings of NFL games.
So how does "Don't ask Don't Tell" apply here? Federal law does not prohibit every team from asking questions about sexual identity. In fact only 12 of the 32 teams (based on the state where they reside) could be held liable for breaking employment law had they been the ones asking the players those types of questions. It also would have to be proven that said player would be discriminated against if the team knew or believed that this player was homo or bi-sexual. We don't know the purpose of asking that type of information in the combine interviews, but the insinuation is easy to make. Teams are wary of being the first to deal with an openly gay player.
The "concern" by NFL teams followed the Manti Te'o case, where the star linebacker (potentially a first round selection) was fooled into believing he was in a long term relationship with a woman he never met. He later found out that woman never existed and was the imagination of a man who was obviously infatuated with Te'o himself. Because Te'o hid the truth from the media and continued the narrative, it led to speculation that he may have known more then he admitted to and was too ashamed to admit that he could be homo or bi sexual. Te'o claims he is heterosexual which, as we have learned by the questioning at the latest combine, is the right answer to maintain league wide interest. What's most interesting about the change in dialogue regarding Te'o's prospects is the discussion point has focused less on Te'o's extraordinary level of naivete, but rather his sexual preference. The conclusion is a team is perceived to be more concerned about whether a player is gay then whether a player can be emotionally or financially duped by a con man. The latter seems on it's face more problematic.
The former Politician and Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater once said, "Just because you aren't straight doesn't mean you can't shoot straight." Common sense in a complicated argument. It seems to reason that you could surmise that just because you aren't straight doesn't mean you can run straight into the end zone. But the issue isn't that simple either.
For some context, lets look back at the history of the US military, where on this topic, progress moved at an extraordinarily slow pace. Engaging in homosexual acts were grounds for discharge in the Revolutionary War. It took until World War II before any policies on admissions to the armed services banning gays were implemented. At the time, being homosexual was deemed by the US military as a psychopathology.
In the 1940's, someone who was "caught" conducting a homosexual lifestyle while serving were labeled "Undesirable," and discharged as such. A report in the 1950's commissioned by the US Navy concluded that homosexuals serving constituted no security risk to the country, but also offered that being a Homosexual was "evil." Thus politically there remained a chasm between reason and religious belief.
The Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights movement of the 1970's brought the discussion back to the forefront. But even in the 1980's, Ronald Reagan affirmed the ban on Gays in the military. But politically, the landscape shifted when Bill Clinton took office for his first term in 1992. The Republicans chose not to fight the turning tide of Gay Rights and while some continued to argue that the "promiscuity" of the homosexual and the closed quarters and public showers utilized posed "significant psychological risk to a unit," others maintained through reports that there was no proof that being homosexual made that person unfit for military service.
So a compromise was eventually reached, even if it was flawed. "Don't ask Don't Tell" did not repeal the ban on Gays in the military, it only prevented recruiters from asking those who applied to serve about their sexual orientation. Should a homosexual be caught in a sexual act, that soldier could still be dishonorably discharged.
Undoubtedly it was a start, but it certainly fell short of equal rights. 17 years later, "Don't ask Don't Tell" was repealed. And by September of 2011, military chaplains were allowed to conduct same sex marriages if the practice was allowed by law in the state of port.
This is not to suggest that the issue is part of American history, far from it. The debate continues regarding the right to serve. But certainly progress has occurred.
So what's happened since? Has the military suffered any weaknesses now that Gays are on some level openly serving in defense of the United States of America? The answer to that question is complicated. The Washington Post reported as recently as two years ago that 66,000 homosexuals are believed to be in active duty now, but that would still be a small percentage of the over 2 million who fight. If the adage that 10 percent of the population is gay holds true, then the military has successfully thwarted off that national average in their rank and file. As for the personal safety of Americans on a daily basis: The one foreign terrorist act that occurred on American soil, 9-11, was blamed on a failure of the intelligence community. Only the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in recent wars would be able to disclose if they felt compromised by having a gay member in their barracks.
Back to the NFL where the league appears to be battling a sect of owners whose policy continues to predate "Don't ask Don't tell." By asking innocuous questions about whether a player "likes girls," they are in essence triggering a defense mechanism amongst the players. And there clearly is a right answer should that player hope to impress that particular team-or any team for that matter. Disclosure of what is supposed to be private moments at the combine is commonplace. Thus it's easy to assume if you tell one team you are gay, they will all know you are gay. And if they all know you are gay, you can assume some will discriminate on the basis of that knowledge.
So what are the concerns an NFL team might have with the eventual first openly Gay player?
1) Backlash within the locker room. At the past Super Bowl media day, one of the 49ers players openly said that he doesn't want "any of that sweetness" in his locker room and he surmised that the team does not have any gay players. This was in San Francisco, home to one of the most vibrant and active gay communities in the world.
2) Nudity and Comfort. Not unlike the military, homophobia in the public showers and dressing quarters appears to remain.
3) Dealing with a curious media. Can the team survive an inordinate amount of attention to this issue when it ultimately may have little to do with whether the team wins or loses. NFL teams hire PR firms to deal with such issues and hope to handle them in a way that allows them to go about the business of winning with as few distractions as possible.
Would the attention garnered bring about a number of endorsement opportunities that could cause jealousy or friction within the team?
Or is this all simply an arcane way that the teams are themselves psychologically dealing with a day they know is coming? The President openly campaigned that same sex marriage should be legalized. Don't Ask Don't Tell does not exist anymore, and Gays openly serving this country appears to be a viable end game. The stories of athletes in other sports coming out are starting to emerge with more frequency from Robbie Roberts, the US National Soccer team player to Orlando Cruz the openly gay world champion boxer to Gareth Thomas-the Gay Welsh Rugby star profiled by HBO Real Sports. Furthermore, lesbianism in women's sports is commonplace and accepted.
The last issue with Gays in the NFL revolve around fan reaction, as in, what would it be? If the military is any indication, nothing would change. Gallup releases an annual poll rating the approval of the major American institutions and their results were striking. The military ranks number one in confidence. It has never ranked below 2nd since the 1970's. Congress meantime ranks dead last, 11 percent approval as of the June 2012 release. What this proves is the people working on the policy that prohibits gays in the military receive far less of the public confidence than those who actively serve. Thus Goldwater was right on target with how the public feels and thus it's safe to believe that a Gay football player wouldn't change the Sunday ratings of NFL games.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)