Did you know that the UAAP Juniors Finals is a Best of Four affair?
If a team sweeps the elims, they only have to win two games in the finals to clinch the crown while the other finals squad needs three victories.
This is another boneheaded rule in my opinion. I thought that after the UE debacle of 2007, a team only needs to win once to be declared champion? You should reward teams for their excellence not give other squads more chances to unseat them. Or is it a matter of more gate receipts or even television coverage? Or both? Or... okay, now those are conspiracy theories I'd rather not think about because I think I've seen to much cases by Mulder and Scully.
The problem with today's game is that basketball takes a backseat to the crass commercialism. To say that without the ad spend the league will not thrive, well, I've got two letters for you right (intro Degeneration X music) here -- "B" and "S" and you can take that to the bank. The league was here before even commercialism. While it has helped, it is not the reason why it is vastly successful. You can have all your nifty packages and faux fashion shoots that detract from the game (eh ginagawang showbiz kasi lahat) but if the product sucks then it's not happening.
If an NBA team goes 82-0 (but what is the likelihood of that happening) then they should automatically award the Larry O'Brien trophy to that team. Any other extra game is a farce!
If you say apples and oranges, that is not the point. If they sweep it then give it to them.
What about, say, the World Cup or even FIBA? Teams play anywhere from four to eight games. Now that's just like a single round robin if you ask me. From the very beginning it was determined that there was the group stage and the knockout stage. Case closed.
The UAAP used to be all about the top two teams. In the NCAA, it used to be the first round champion versus the second round champion. The Final Four gives chances to other teams to make it. That's fine. All this came about after the UST sweep of 1993. But I still ask, "why not?" That great Goldies team pulverized their foes and they deserved to be champs. Any finals game was a joke. But again, in the interest of giving teams chances, making the tournament more exciting, making it an even bigger source of income, the Final Four is just right and whether it is Ateneo, UE, UST or whoever with an eliminations round sweep, they should still be rewarded. And it certainly it isn't a best of four series.
But then again, there is no such thing as amateurism in scholastic sports today. Do not delude yourselves. It's pro ball for minors and young adults. But let's not get into that now.
As for statistics being the sole determinant for the post-season awards, it shouldn't be the case. It should be a combination of stats, the votes of coaching staff, officials, and media with more weight on their over-all impact. I certainly think that Adamson's Lester Alvarez should be in that Mythical Five selection.
If the stats are the basis then this right here is the Seniors Mythical Five:
Ryan Garcia (FEU) -- 59.2 statistical points
Shan Mbe (NU) -- 59.0 statistical points
Al Ramos (FEU) -- 58.7 statistical points
Paul Lee (UE) -- 57.7 statistical points
Ken Acibar (UE) -- 50.6 statistical points
FEU's Reil Cervantes is at sixth with Ateneo's Eric Salamat in seventh place.
UP's Magi Sison steadily moved up the rankings with solid performances. He is at number eight. UST's Chris Camus and Adamson's Alex Nuyles round out the Top 10.
So tell me what is wrong with that picture? We like to say that statistics do not tell the whole story. That is strongly attached to a team's success. Having said that, with all due respect to Acibar, I'd put in Alvarez right in there.
Avarez finished at #23 in case you want to know.
"The league was here before even commercialism. While it has helped, it is not the reason why it is vastly successful."
ReplyDeleteD*mn right!