Here we go again. Let's talk about things.
1. It's easier to make the NCAA Softball Tournament than the SEC Tournament. Missouri didn't make the latter, but was selected to the former, in the Oklahoma regional. That sets up a potential meeting with former Tiger Paige Lowary, who pitches for Oklahoma and helped lead the Sooners to the national title last year. OU is the No. 4 overall national seed. To get to that game, the Tigers will have to beat Tulsa on Friday.
I've said I don't think Missouri deserved to get in. Part of it is going 6-17 in the SEC, sure. The Tigers did go 7-6 in the non-conference against tournament teams, which means overall they were 13-23 against tournament teams. I guess it shows they're capable of beating some teams in the tournament. They probably ARE one of the 64 best teams. But honestly, why play a whole season if the entire league is getting in and if only seven at large bids come out of leagues other than the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and PAC 12 (three of them were from the American, which Tulsa won)?
So much is made about the little guys not getting a fair shake in the NCAA basketball tournament. The truth is, they get more of a fair shake than ANY other college sport. UCF proved you can't make the playoff from outside a major conference. And women's sports are even worse. I think a big part of the lack of interest is there's just hardly ever any change in the teams that have a chance to win a national title. I don't want to sit and watch the same 10 teams duke it out for championships every single year. It's boring. Kind of like AFC football the last 20 years. Since 1996, exactly six AFC teams have made a Super Bowl. Tennessee and Oakland made one. The other 21 have been Baltimore, Denver, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis or New England.
Either way, Mizzou is in. I don't expect the stay to last very long.
2. Speaking of diamond sports postseasons, Missouri's baseball hopes took a blow this weekend. The Tigers lost two out of three at South Carolina including a 1-0 heartbreaker on Sunday. That leaves Mizzou 10-17 in the league, 31-20 overall. Unlike the softball team, the Tigers have a whole bunch of wins over good teams and I think that gives you a solid argument they should be in. But Mizzou is a game and a half behind Tennessee for sixth place in the East. To qualify for the SEC Tournament, Mizzou has to win two out of three to tie the Vols and have a chance at the tournament. The first tie breaker is head to head record against common opponents. I'm not sure what that is right now to be honest. So to ASSURE a spot in the league tournament, Mizzou has to sweep Tennessee at home this weekend. If they do that, I think they'll get in the NCAA Tournament. If they don't, I'm not sure.
3. Quite a ruckus was raised here in our corner of the Internet when Frank Cusumano said that Barry Odom was surly and standoffish (I don't know if that was the exact wording) when asked for an interview earlier this week. I have some thoughts on this.
First, let me say this: Us media folk are a whiny bunch. There's really no doubt. There are multiple reasons for this, some valid, some stupid, but really, we bitch a lot.
Coaches don't OWE us anything. They can do as many or as few interviews as they want. They can be really nice or really awful to us when they grant those interviews. Whatever. They have a job to do, we have a job to do and we'll both keep on doing them regardless of what the other side thinks.
My main stance has always been this: I don't care if the people that I cover like me. I care that they respect me, think I'm fair and think I work hard. To my knowledge, most of them have over the years. I would think the coaches should think the same of me. Whether I like them or not doesn't much matter. And, really, whether I respect them probably doesn't matter either. But I'd think they'd prefer that I do as opposed to the alternative.
Really this comes down to a simple concept: Human nature. If media members are critical of coaches, the coach probably is going to be less pleased to talk to those media members. And it may come through in their interactions. Conversely, if coaches are dicks to media members, those media members are probably going to be less likely to cut those coaches slack when it comes to coverage of their teams and it's probably going to come through in their coverage. Fair or not, it's human nature. You're nicer to people that are nice to you.
The "combative" nature of the relationship has always been there, but I think it's gotten far worse in the last 10 years. When my dad covered the Kansas City Royals (late 70s, early 80s) he used to travel with the team. He knew the players. He was virtually embedded with the team. Now? We watch 40 minutes of practice and talk to a handful of pre-selected players along with 15 other media members in a scrum. A one on one is like gold in this business and very rarely granted to anyone who doesn't have a national outlet backing them. The result is we don't know them and they don't know us.
Teams don't "need" us anymore. They all have their own networks and "reporters" and Twitter accounts and they use those to push out the news they want out. The rest of it, they don't really want out and all they have to do to prevent it from getting out is not talking to us. It's become a relationship that is far more adversarial than it needs to be. And it's bad for both sides. From our side, obviously, the less access we get, the more we're left to speculate and write analysis and opinion rather than actual reporting. And a lot of that analysis and opinion is half informed at best and written by people who have never attended a single game or practice at worst. I know that many of you will say "I don't have to go to a game to see who's good or bad." And you're right about that for the most part. But being there does two things: Gives you some background as to WHY certain things happen--in other words, if I'm at every practice, maybe I have an idea why a guy who isn't producing continues to play, or why a guy who appears to be better than the person ahead of him on the depth chart isn't playing. Second, I'm a strong believer in an outdated concept: If you're going to analyze and criticize, then you should be there to give those you analyze and criticize the opportunity to do the same. If I'm going to write that Barry Odom didn't do a good job of preparing his team on a given Saturday, then I owe it to him to show up on Monday and ask him a question of why that happened and give him the chance to tell me I'm an idiot to my face. He probably won't do it, but all I can do is give him the opportunity.
Anyway, no coach is going to be made or broken by the media's opinion of him--and for the record, I have no issue with Barry Odom. Sure, I'd like to talk to more of his players and have the rules go back to what they were 15 years ago, but it's probably not happening. But overall, I feel like Odom has always treated me fairly and I'm pretty confident he feels the same about me.
1. It's easier to make the NCAA Softball Tournament than the SEC Tournament. Missouri didn't make the latter, but was selected to the former, in the Oklahoma regional. That sets up a potential meeting with former Tiger Paige Lowary, who pitches for Oklahoma and helped lead the Sooners to the national title last year. OU is the No. 4 overall national seed. To get to that game, the Tigers will have to beat Tulsa on Friday.
I've said I don't think Missouri deserved to get in. Part of it is going 6-17 in the SEC, sure. The Tigers did go 7-6 in the non-conference against tournament teams, which means overall they were 13-23 against tournament teams. I guess it shows they're capable of beating some teams in the tournament. They probably ARE one of the 64 best teams. But honestly, why play a whole season if the entire league is getting in and if only seven at large bids come out of leagues other than the Big Ten, Big 12, SEC and PAC 12 (three of them were from the American, which Tulsa won)?
So much is made about the little guys not getting a fair shake in the NCAA basketball tournament. The truth is, they get more of a fair shake than ANY other college sport. UCF proved you can't make the playoff from outside a major conference. And women's sports are even worse. I think a big part of the lack of interest is there's just hardly ever any change in the teams that have a chance to win a national title. I don't want to sit and watch the same 10 teams duke it out for championships every single year. It's boring. Kind of like AFC football the last 20 years. Since 1996, exactly six AFC teams have made a Super Bowl. Tennessee and Oakland made one. The other 21 have been Baltimore, Denver, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis or New England.
Either way, Mizzou is in. I don't expect the stay to last very long.
2. Speaking of diamond sports postseasons, Missouri's baseball hopes took a blow this weekend. The Tigers lost two out of three at South Carolina including a 1-0 heartbreaker on Sunday. That leaves Mizzou 10-17 in the league, 31-20 overall. Unlike the softball team, the Tigers have a whole bunch of wins over good teams and I think that gives you a solid argument they should be in. But Mizzou is a game and a half behind Tennessee for sixth place in the East. To qualify for the SEC Tournament, Mizzou has to win two out of three to tie the Vols and have a chance at the tournament. The first tie breaker is head to head record against common opponents. I'm not sure what that is right now to be honest. So to ASSURE a spot in the league tournament, Mizzou has to sweep Tennessee at home this weekend. If they do that, I think they'll get in the NCAA Tournament. If they don't, I'm not sure.
3. Quite a ruckus was raised here in our corner of the Internet when Frank Cusumano said that Barry Odom was surly and standoffish (I don't know if that was the exact wording) when asked for an interview earlier this week. I have some thoughts on this.
First, let me say this: Us media folk are a whiny bunch. There's really no doubt. There are multiple reasons for this, some valid, some stupid, but really, we bitch a lot.
Coaches don't OWE us anything. They can do as many or as few interviews as they want. They can be really nice or really awful to us when they grant those interviews. Whatever. They have a job to do, we have a job to do and we'll both keep on doing them regardless of what the other side thinks.
My main stance has always been this: I don't care if the people that I cover like me. I care that they respect me, think I'm fair and think I work hard. To my knowledge, most of them have over the years. I would think the coaches should think the same of me. Whether I like them or not doesn't much matter. And, really, whether I respect them probably doesn't matter either. But I'd think they'd prefer that I do as opposed to the alternative.
Really this comes down to a simple concept: Human nature. If media members are critical of coaches, the coach probably is going to be less pleased to talk to those media members. And it may come through in their interactions. Conversely, if coaches are dicks to media members, those media members are probably going to be less likely to cut those coaches slack when it comes to coverage of their teams and it's probably going to come through in their coverage. Fair or not, it's human nature. You're nicer to people that are nice to you.
The "combative" nature of the relationship has always been there, but I think it's gotten far worse in the last 10 years. When my dad covered the Kansas City Royals (late 70s, early 80s) he used to travel with the team. He knew the players. He was virtually embedded with the team. Now? We watch 40 minutes of practice and talk to a handful of pre-selected players along with 15 other media members in a scrum. A one on one is like gold in this business and very rarely granted to anyone who doesn't have a national outlet backing them. The result is we don't know them and they don't know us.
Teams don't "need" us anymore. They all have their own networks and "reporters" and Twitter accounts and they use those to push out the news they want out. The rest of it, they don't really want out and all they have to do to prevent it from getting out is not talking to us. It's become a relationship that is far more adversarial than it needs to be. And it's bad for both sides. From our side, obviously, the less access we get, the more we're left to speculate and write analysis and opinion rather than actual reporting. And a lot of that analysis and opinion is half informed at best and written by people who have never attended a single game or practice at worst. I know that many of you will say "I don't have to go to a game to see who's good or bad." And you're right about that for the most part. But being there does two things: Gives you some background as to WHY certain things happen--in other words, if I'm at every practice, maybe I have an idea why a guy who isn't producing continues to play, or why a guy who appears to be better than the person ahead of him on the depth chart isn't playing. Second, I'm a strong believer in an outdated concept: If you're going to analyze and criticize, then you should be there to give those you analyze and criticize the opportunity to do the same. If I'm going to write that Barry Odom didn't do a good job of preparing his team on a given Saturday, then I owe it to him to show up on Monday and ask him a question of why that happened and give him the chance to tell me I'm an idiot to my face. He probably won't do it, but all I can do is give him the opportunity.
Anyway, no coach is going to be made or broken by the media's opinion of him--and for the record, I have no issue with Barry Odom. Sure, I'd like to talk to more of his players and have the rules go back to what they were 15 years ago, but it's probably not happening. But overall, I feel like Odom has always treated me fairly and I'm pretty confident he feels the same about me.
