Welcome to the Friday Feedback, which … ah, screw it.

overtheSEC said:

Da’Sean’s knee may not be healed yet, but he just leapt over Ebanks. Wow.

This angers me. Oh, it’s funny. It’s appropriate. There’s nothing wrong with it. I’m just disappointed I never thought of it.

Late in the first round last night there were a few teams with picks who’d worked Ebanks out and generated some sort of a buzz suggesting they might select him. You figured he’d go 24, 26, something like that, if he was in fact a first-round talent — and, quite clearly, there were questions if he was.

“He’s a very good rebounder,” ESPN draft analyst Jay Bilas said. “He’s got long arms. He’s a versatile defender. He’s not a shooter. He’s not a scorer. He’s not a guy who’s going to put the ball on the deck and get in the lane and get fouled. He’s kind of a motion offense player where he’s a cutter. He’s not a jump-shooter. He does make his free throws. He’s got some potential as a player, but he’s not an offensive player.”

Obviously, Ebanks wasn’t selected in the first round and once we got to pick No. 29 I asked if people might be interested in a bet. Who goes first? Butler or Ebanks? No one would take it.

Butler went first at No. 42 to the Miami Heat and Ebanks went a pick later. Initially, it seems like it can work for both. Ultimately, who knows?

Begin with Ebanks. Say what you will about his decision to go early, but he was picked by the two-time defending champions who didn’t have a first-round pick … which means Ebanks carries a little more weight. He’ll be around professionals and great influences. He’ll be on a winning team. He’ll get a chance to settle and grow. He even had a Trevor Ariza label applied to him and the Lakers never quite replaced the Ariza element after he went to Houston in free agency. Then again, it’s not like they missed it too much, either. I’m having a hard time finding a negative, to be quite honest, but I can stretch.

Whether or not Phil Jackson returns will be interesting with regard to Ebanks’s future – his familiarity and success with a motion offense translates to the triangle — and I do wonder if he can hang around on a bench for three, four, five nights in a row and then come in when the team needs him. He’s always played, but the Lakers aren’t going to need him right away. But again, it’s a good spot so he can have the right people show him the right way.

Butler’s position is a little more interesting. In recent years Miami has drafted and signed players who didn’t have elite talent, but had good skills and reputations — Mario Chalmers — and allowed them to grow into good players. Miami wasn’t one of the five NBA cities he traveled to last week, but we were led to believe it was one of the eight to 10 teams he met with in Chicago. The Heat traded out of the first round — another “first pick means more” possibility — and, it would reason, would like to make their pick stick.

Miami is going to be very active in free agency and it’s conceivable only one or two people on the end-of-the-season roster will be back. Perhaps they want to draft a guy they think can be had for cheap and contribute? It’s hard to sign a dozen free agents.

Conversely, it’s possible the Heat want to make as few commitments as possible to be as financially flexible as possible. As a second-round pick, Butler’s contract isn’t guaranteed and doesn’t count against Miami’s salary cap number, which is important because they want to have about $49 million free to go after three maximum salary free agents. The Heat can stash Butler for a year, allow his knee to recover, maybe even reintroduce him through the D-League, and it can work out for both. Or they can just never sign him. That’s true, too.

Onto the Feedback. As always, comments appear as posted. In other words, be a hound, not a bull dog.

oklahoma mountaineer said:

What does this say about Ebanks’ perceived value when a guy on the same team described as not a good athlete who blew out his knee in his last game goes above him…….half full answer is what it says about Butler.

Ebanks’ problems at the beginning of last year, coupled with his disappearing at times, during the season cost him……another solid year with improvements on the offensive end would have put him in the first round.

Fair point. It’s strange how two players in very different pre-draft situations were evaluated so closely and then picked so close together. I had two NBA teams call me to ask about Ebanks and the questions were predominantly about character and behavioral issues — by the way, I chose not to participate — and I know another person who was contacted by two other NBA teams for the same reasons. I never heard from anyone about Butler nor did I hear about such a thing.

jtmountaineer said:

I’m shocked and thrilled Da went so early, and he’s got a really good situation in Miami. That they took him early tells me they truly are interested, and they have nothing but room for inexpensive talent interested in proving themselves. This is, unlike it was for Joe Alexander, an optimal scenario.

I’m shocked and a bit dismayed that Devin, so long presumed a late first rounder, went not only in the mid-second round, but after Da. The latter seems appropriate, but I’d be interested in knowing how he slid. A few players clearly moved up on the big board recently, but it wasn’t like the draft was flooded at the last minute with internationals. I’m among the minority who had thought Devin made the right call coming out early. But the Lakers aren’t exactly a team with needs.

With Patterson and Whiteside also going, that’s four players with WV ties out of the 60 drafted.

Yeah, neat little night for West Virginia folk. WVU had never had two players taken in the top two rounds. Whiteside is a big deal for Marshall, too, I would think. And good for Patterson, who deserved it all. I wouldn’t put too much into Devin’s slide. He was a late first-round guy, at best. I thought the ESPN guy who worked in the NBA with the salary cap was a pretty good source for information. Prior to the start of the second round he spoke about how teams really value the early second-round picks because it’s all reward with no risk. Obviously, you want reward there so you take guys you trust will make it. It can work.

Tim said:

You’ve got to think Ebanks made a bad decision here. Just because people have been telling him he was going to play in the NBA since middle school doesn’t mean he had to leave. He would have had the opportunity to lead the team in scoring this year and shot up the board in next years draft.

I understand people want to say that, but I can’t say it. He was essentially the first-round pick by the two-time NBA champ. He’s going to maybe the best franchise in the sport. He’ll be around strong personalities that’ll help control and develop his. I can go on. I also think people unfairly presume things about Ebanks, such as leading the team in scoring. That would probably be Kevin Jones next year. If Kilicli becomes a centerpiece, Ebanks is again a complimentary player. Now could he get better at things? Certainly, I’ll agree with that. But is Ebanks today much different than Ebanks one year from today? Would he become a reliable 3-point guy? A triple-threat scorer? I think a hell of a lot of the kid as a player and as a competitor, but he was going to again be a motion offense guy who scored off his own movements, off rebounds and in transition. If money matters most, sure, you can say he goofed up. But would the money be better next year? And you can’t forget about the lockout, either. And can you say he’d be in a better place a year from today then where he is today? An interesting debate, I’m certain.

roopoo said:

The unsurity of the draft next year could be a huge plus for WVU…Kevin Jones might stay for his senior year!

Excellent point. 

BillyBall said:

I still believe that the larger this discrepancy grows, and the longer we wait to do anything about it, the bigger this problem gets. These new TV deals are substantial increases for those other programs and WVU had better do something about it. The conference too.

I do think though that there’s only so much money you really need to win championships, unless you are planning on new facilities every other year or even bigger stadiums (but you need to SELL these seats if you build them right?). I guess the big winners will be coaches and the universities themselves….maybe tuition costs can finally level off?

Yeah, they’ll lower tuition. They’ll also agree to hand out textbooks at the beginning of the semester. And they’ll fly kids to and from home for holidays rather than invite more cars than a campus can handle. Agreed it’s reaching a ridiculous level, but what can you do? The money is there. People are giving it out so why not take it? As for WVU and the Big East, it is indeed concerning, but there’s nothing that can be done about it right now. The current deal has remaining years and even the kindest television partner would be crazy to do something new or improved now. And say the Big East does stay together and is in a favorable position when the contract expires. Are the economic conditions going to allow a network three years from now to make the same financial commitment? Am I using a lot of hypothetical questions today? Does it bother you? Have you gone back to work?

Jeff in Akron said:

With conference expansion, and the potential negative affect it could have on the Big East, a new TV deal could be a very hard sell. If however, and its a big if, the Big East pulls a Big 12 and presents a united front and chooses to maintain the conference a new tv deal could be lucrative.

The Big East has the best basketball conference in the land. In football, the Big East doesn’t receive the same respect. Even though they are solidly ahead of both the ACC and the Big Ten in BCS conference vs BCS conference wins over the last four years.

The timeline of the current contract is a negative when viewed in relation to conference expansion, and revenue. However, the silver lining is that by the time the Big East enters into negotiations for a renewed deal Charlie Strong at “The Ville”, Butch at Cincy, and Holtz at USF will have had an opportunity to build their programs. The potential depth of quality football teams would begin to rival the depth the Big East has in basketball.

“If” the Big East can remain intact until then, their football brand will be in far better shape. A couple of BCS bowl wins in the process wouldn’t hurt either. The Big East would be in much better shape had Cincy won even one of their last two BCS bowls. Whichever Big East team represents the conference in the BCS this year, must win. Also important, the Big East has to show a winning ledger in BCS conference vs BCS conference games in 2010.

Hey, there’s hope, don’t get me wrong. There’s also a chance Louisville made another bad hire, Holtz is what he was/USF is what it was, Cincinnati remains a stepping stone, Syracuse doesn’t get it going, etc. That wouldn’t be good. Then again, yeah, it’d be good to get the best teams through to the BCS and give the league the best chance to win those games and pump up its reputation (also, does anyone thing there were cartwheel parades in Providence after Utah went to the Pac-10 and made the MWC and its BCS argument weaker?) Also, and it pains me to say this, but basketball isn’t nearly as big of a deal to television as is football … and probably because the saturation of games. I think the Big East would flip reputations in an instant.

Drew said:

“a deal that was done in August 2006, as the conference was still trying to find its legs after losing Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College”

Who’s bright idea was it to sign a six year deal at that time?

That’s still small potatoes relative to other conferences. Football-wise the new Big East is so depressing. The only upside is it’s the easiest BCS conference to win, but if you’re not the one winning it then it’s pretty sad.

Seems like it’d make sense to have TV cycles in line with bowl cycles, yes?

Dave said:

I wrote this elsewhere, but I am somewhat surprised that the B10 “needs” Rutgers in order to penetrate the NYC market … something that they state with regard to their fanbase there. They don’t really care about who is paying, they would rather *everyone* pay for their network. Otherwise, they’re trying to convince us that the conversation goes something like this:

B10: We want to get into the NYC market and we have a large fanbase who wants to see our product.

Cable: No.

B10: We just acquired controlling interest in Rutgers football.

Cable: Oh, well if you have the Rutgers interest, yes we can work this out.

?!

I think it’s more about getting into the most populated area and therefore inviting the most television sets. But I get what you’re saying. I think others are, too …

Karl said:

The idea that adding Rutgers automatically gives them the NYC market is preposterous. Number one, if they wanted to come to NY/NJ they’d be dealing with Cablevision, a company which is very much in the sports business itself — they own the Knicks, Rangers, MSG Network and MSG2. They might view the B10 Network as a competitor, and would not be eager to do it any favors.

If you think that’s a reach, recall the war Cablevision waged with Steinbrenner when he was trying to get the YES network on the air a few years back. They were pushing a model much like the Big 10 Network in that they wanted the station rolled in with the basic cable packages and for Cablevision to pay them for the programming. It got ugly. Cablevision refused and for a while there was a real risk that NYC-NJ viewers were not going to be able to watch the Yankees. The Yankees! They won’t bend for RU and its small (but growing) fanbase.

And if they want to run it as a paid subscription channel, good luck with that. The channel is already here on Cablevision and I don’t know a single person who actually ordered it.

See? The kicker is the subscription/free availability. It’s not going to be easy for B10Net to crack that market.

roopoo said:

In a lot of ways I feel Devine represents the state of West Virginia in that both constantly struggle and work hard, to overcome a negative, biased, and uninformed perception that ignorant people choose to view as reality. Because of that alone I feel he belongs in the conversation as one of the Mountaineer greats!

… and really, who thought we’d be saying this and nodding our heads in agreement three years ago? Can’t say enough about the kid and what he’s done and become at WVU.

The 25314 said:

“I think the they should give him the ball more.”

Please, please, PLEASE give him the ball more.

Would a rise in shovel passes be OK?

Karl said:

I know I’ll be in the minority here, but if I had to build a team picking a WVU back, I’d take Slaton, Zeroue and maybe even Quincy Wilson before him. Devine has a very unique skill set with some fundamental deficiencies. Basically, he’s like one of those baseball players who either hits a home run or strikes out every time. A complete player needs to find a way to get base hits when he’s not getting great pitches.

Noel Devine has never been able to do that with consistency. His yards per carry average is ridiculous because he balances out 10 zero-yard gains with a 65-yard run. Everybody loves the big run, but it’s hard to build drives on that. Better teams can contain those. When it’s 3rd and 4, you need to be able to burst through the gut and mvoe the chains the hard way. Unfortunately, it seems there have been too many games where teams have almost completely shut him down after he wasn’t able to break a long one in space.

No argument with any of that. Actually, I’d echo it all … but, damn, his home runs are fun to watch.

rekterx said:

If the o-line shows substantial improvement he will bust loose for a great season. How hard is this to figure out?

Time will tell, but the word “substantial” would have me worried if I was the type of person who worried about these things.

oklahoma mountaineer said:

History books go back farther than 1990; there was a guy named Jim Braxton that should be in this discussion…….

Quincy Wilson may be the best combo of size and speed we have seen for a while. That said, Slaton is now in the league so he is in the discussion.

Yeah, don’t sleep on Jim Braxton. I appreciate his unexpected receiving numbers in 1970 … tight end transition went well.

Spatial Angel said:

Quincy.
No one ever did more with less.

Brandon Meriweather would like to speak with you.

SheikYbuti said:

I might take Avon Cobourne over all of these guys. I’d also have to take a hard look at some guy named Artie Owens.

Steady, though not prolific. Never scored more than once in a game. The injury in 1973 hurt his all-timer chances. Dwayne Woods took over that year.

roopoo said:

Rodgers’ stats were ridiculous, and he played and was the captain of three sports teams; football, basketball, and baseball. He also played on the golf team and went on to coach the football, baseball, and golf teams. In 1919 he scored 147 points while rushing for 19 TD’s, throwing for 11 more (when few teams rarely threw the ball), and kicking 33 extra points. There is no doubt Rodgers is right at the top of the list of RB’s.

Thank goodness someone mentioned Ira. Mickey was loading up a molotov cocktail until he saw that.

Dr Love said:

Wes Ours had more speed per pound than any other Mountaineer back ever!

Indisputable!

Dave said:

We had a discussion at work and while many understand that the game requires certain skills and can be played at high level, it was determined that any sport where fans debate whether to watch the game or to beat up the person next to them and start a riot suffers from a severe lack of excitement.

Honest question: Did you watch Wednesday? If so, can you honestly say the same? I told my dad Wednesday it was easily one of the top 10 most exciting sporting events I’ve seen live or in person. He nearly drove four hours here just to throw the phone at me. He says it’s because I don’t have a successful team I live and die with, which, for the past painful few years is pretty true. That said, that was completely irresistible drama. It was tremendous theater. I remember a number of compelling, riveting and fantastic things I’ve seen — Game 7 of 1997 World Series, Montana to Taylor in Super Bowl 23, WVU-Wake Forest in 2005 NCAA Tournament, many others — and this had all of that and more. Understood it’s a matter of personal preference, but, man, if you watched, how could you not enjoy that? Also, when it’s a matter of national pride, it’s amped up a zillion levels. This isn’t the best soccer in the world, but it’s the most competitive and emotional. Look at how many non-fans were irate over the disallowed goal against Slovenia. Even my dad had an issue with this … and he’s this close to disowning me.

lowercase jeff said:

there is something about soccer that causes people that don’t play it, watch it, follow it, or, like it, to talk like someone who knows its strengths and weaknesses. i find that very strange. if i hear one more person who doesnt know a through pass from a corner kick talk about the things soccer needs to change, im going to go crazy. either watch it, and talk about it, or dont watch it, and dont talk about it.

also, liking stairway to heaven doesnt make you a led zeppelin fan. liking football and basketball doesnt make you a sports fan.

Fair. I love that people who don’t like it are suddenly on board with it. Doesn’t bother me a bit. I think it’s a great success of the sport and its marketing to see this happening. I can do without the suggested improvements and such, but I do like that, if even for a month every four years, people seem to care.

Drew said:

Are you trying to say that if you don’t like soccer you’re not a sports fan?

Elitist fans are one of the many reasons why soccer won’t catch on in America.

Now that’s a good point. Football and basketball being as popular as they are, I think the large majority of fans expect more action and more immediate/consistent rewards. Soccer doesn’t have that in the same supply.

CasazzaSucks said:

Geez, CasNANCY!! If Doc was still at WVU, you’d be sucking him just as hard as you do everything else WVU. Get a life and get some journalistic skills. You are in dire need of both. The WVU beat is perfect for you. No facts needed, just pure delusion. You would be better served using your lonely evening planning your conspiracy theory for your September 11th blog, column, junk, etc.

This wasn’t even my favorite comment this week. I’ll respond, though: Since you’re such a protector of facts, I’d ask you, sir, to provide me with some facts that support the allegations you’ve made of me here. I’m confident fans on the other side of the rivalry would have a hard time helping.

Danny Hayes said:

Hey, WVU hack, why don’t you provide some proof it was Doc.

You get your paycheck from WVU or the Daily Mail?

I have no idea what this means.

glibglub said:

So, the pair of Marshall fans posting here think Mike Casazza is responsible for the Doc-leaked-the-WVU-self-reporting story?

To my reading, he’s simply linked to another reporter’s story and implied that how Doc did it is perhaps how another party/ies ought to do it, i.e., when accused of something which is not the case, issue a denial.

/sigh

Yet another setback for the concept of reading comprehension.

Gets worse…

Danny Hayes said:

Hey,Casazza, are you a pedophile, because if you deny it then it must be true.

Again, I have no idea what this means relative to anything I’ve done. There was no accusation from me about Doc’s alleged actions. Rather, I think it’s a good idea for Doc to deny it. I think another party accused of something should, if innocent, deny it, too. Silence is frequently damning. Does that make any sense to you, Mr. Hayes?

JP said:

There’s nothing better than an ad hominem attack to bolster an argument.

Take it easy, JP.

 The 25314 said:

Doc Holliday then said, “I plan to be at Marshall as long as they’ll have me.”

Still not the best of the week … though very good.

notruB said:

Rough translation of Hollliday’s denial “I’m your huckleberry.”

Enjoy the weekend!