Gutter: Insert your witty "Pitt lost in the Sweet Sixteen again" cliche here

Okay, let’s say the obvious:

Pitt lost in the Sweet Sixteen. Again. Fourth time in four tries. Fourth time in six years. Nevermind that they got there; it only matters that they died there. Again.

Is it out of the way? Good, because I don’t want to hear it. This isn’t a program problem. Those four losses featured two different head coaches and a dozen or two different players. It’s hard to say that a college program has a problem getting past a hurdle like the Sweet Sixteen since the personnel of the team changes over time. And at Pitt, not only have the players changed, but the coach has changed, too.

So this isn’t a problem with the program. That’s not the story. The story is how Pitt lost this game, the game played in 2007, not 2002 or 2003 or 2004. 2007.

Do we have that out of our system then? Good.

For Pitt, the Sweet Sixteen opponent in 2007 was UCLA, coached by former Pitt head man Ben Howland. The game was proceeded by piles of talk about how the game would pit Howland against his former assistant, Pitt coach Jamie Dixon, and how the game would feature two teams that played very similar styles. In particular, the teams shared a common focus on playing tough, lock-down defense.

For once, the pre-game talk was on-point, as Pitt and UCLA engaged in the basketball equivalent of a 9-6 football game. The final score was 64-55, and if you’re a fan of defensive basketball (and I guess there are people like that out there), then you probably loved this game. Otherwise, you probably hated it. Actually, I take that back: if you’re a fan of watching two teams really gut it out and play very hard against each other, then you were probably really into the game, even if Pitt and UCLA didn’t score much.

And really, you have to admire the effort of both Pitt and UCLA. Both teams wanted to play tough defense and make it really difficult for the other team to score, and both teams did just that. But why, exactly, is Pitt’s season over? Why couldn’t they beat the Bruins on Thursday night?

Well, it’s quite simple. Two reasons, really.

1. Pitt made a low percentage of their high-percentage shots.
2. UCLA shot miles above their heads from the free throw line.

That’s really what it comes down to. Time and time again, Pitt had layups that were on the low end of the difficulty scale, the highest of high-percentage shots, and they bricked them. Never mind Ronald Ramon’s fine three-point shooting (4-of-7); sure, those shots helped Pitt look like it could mount a comeback, but it was the bunnies that didn’t fall that killed their chances.

Numbers don’t usually lie, and this stat certainly doesn’t: Pitt hit 20 of their 55 field goal attempts.

Earlier this week, I had a chance to speak with former Pitt player Brandin Knight. Knight is currently the Panthers’ video coordinator, and he played at Pitt when Howland was the head coach. Figuring that he would know as well as anyone, I asked him what it takes to beat a Ben Howland team. He said a couple things about sustaining pace and tempo and that sort of basketball speak. Then he summed it up succinctly:

”It all comes down to who’s making shots. That’s the main thing.”

How very prescient, Brandin.

That’s what it was: Pitt needed to make its shots. And not the tough shots, not the fadeaway jumpers from just inside the line, not the turn-around hooks, not the NBA three’s. Pitt needed to make the shots that it makes on a nightly basis, the shots that piled up 29 wins this season. This was a team that shot nearly 70% against Georgetown during the two teams’ regular season match-up in Pittsburgh. Now, on that night they got a few lucky bounces, but by and large their astronomical shooting percentage came from getting the high-percentage shots to fall.

That’s what they needed against UCLA. And that’s what they didn’t get.

Pitt was even with UCLA in rebounds. They had more assists and fewer turnovers than the Bruins. And they had more blocked shots, more offensive rebounds, and more steals.

But the shots didn't fall for the Panthers. As such, they lost. Simple as that.

And then there’s the matter of UCLA making every single free throw. Okay, not every single one, but 23 out of 26 is pretty darn close to 100% (according to ESPN, it’s 88.5%). The thing of it is, the Bruins are a team that shoots 65% from the charity stripe. They’re not a great free throw shooting team. They’re not even a good free throw shooting team. As a matter of fact, they’re widely considered to be among the worst free throw shooting teams in the nation, at least among the teams that are considered to be “good.”

But they made their free throws on Thursday night. Meanwhile, Pitt was 8-of-14 from the line. That’s a 15 point difference in free throws alone. A 15 point advantage in a 9 point game is a big difference.

And so it goes. Pitt lays an egg, and the season is over. The Panthers may be able to take something away from this game, knowing that they had a chance to top UCLA and advance to the Elite Eight.

But they didn’t make their shots, and they aren’t moving on.

It’s over.



Anyone want to talk spring football?

Gutter: Who do you think you are? Nickelback? (part 3)

I meant to post on this when it first came out, but several other things happened (namely Bob Smizik’s overwhelming excitement, Bill Peduto dropping out, and the Pirates having a good inning), so I got a bit distracted. But those digressions have passed, and now I can get back to a recurring subject on this blog:

The continuing saga of members of the Pitt men’s basketball team refusing to address the media (Part one, Part two).

Well, it happened again. See Ron Cook’s column in the 3/20/2007 issue of the Post-Gazette. Cook writes about Pitt basketball players Levance Fields (point guard, men’s team) and Marcedes Walker (center, women’s team) and the impact that those two have on their respective teams. And what’s more, Cook writes about the off-court relationship of Fields and Walker. It’s been known for some time in Pitt circles that the two are romantically involved; now Cook has outed them to the public.

But that’s not what this is about. Granted, there are probably a lot of cheap jokes to be made about this situation, but I’m going to attempt to avoid them (Raul Mondesi makes enough jokes for the both of us). What’s relevant, at least to me, is something Cook mentions about seven or ten paragraphs into the column.

It’s unfortunate, Fields refused to come out of the Pitt locker room yesterday to talk about Walker’s game, probably because his teammates were teasing him unmercifully when they found out someone wanted to talk to him about his girlfriend of more than a year.

Hey, we’re not proud of it, but it’s a guy thing.

No, no, no, Ron, don’t let Fields off the hook that easy. Fields refused to talk to the media. Period. Don’t make excuses about being embarrassed or too proud; Fields refused to talk.

Now, this may not be the same situation as when Fields refused to talk when the team was leaving for Buffalo. Maybe he really didn’t feel comfortable talking about his relationship and, quite frankly, I’m not sure it necessarily needs to be written about in One of America’s Great Newspapers. It’s rather gossipy, and even though Cook sticks mostly to basketball, the relationship angle is still the theme and focus of the column.

That being said, I don’t think it would have harmed anyone to have Fields give a couple quotes about the way Walker plays and her game (on the court, that is). Walker talks about the way Fields plays, why not have Fields do the same? I spoke with someone about this idea, and they felt that the column was based on a poorly-chosen subject (the relationship) and that it shouldn’t have been written to begin with. I’m not interested in debating the column itself. What I’m interested in is the fact that, once again, Levance Fields has flat-out told the media ‘no.’

And it wasn’t just Cook that got ‘big-timed.’ The day that Cook was conducting his interviews was Monday, the day that the men’s basketball team was leaving for San Jose, where they would face UCLA in the Sweet Sixteen round of the NCAA Tournament. As was the case when the team was leaving for Buffalo, a number of players and coaches addressed the assembled media throng at the Petersen Events Center loading dock before boarding a bus to the airport. And, just like last week before they left for Buffalo, Fields slipped past the media.

Aaron Gray spoke to the media. Levon Kendall spoke to the media. Mike Cook spoke to the media. Ronald Ramon spoke to the media. Keith Benjamin spoke to the media. Jamie Dixon spoke to the media. Brandin Knight spoke to the media. But Levance Fields, the team’s starting point guard, the player who will lead the Panthers onto the court and act as their floor general when the team looks to advance past the Sweet Sixteen for the first time in school history, refused to speak.

So I ask again:

Who do you think you are? Nickelback?

Gutter: Who do you think you are? Nickelback? (part 2)

So, as I was saying, an unpleasant theme has been developing on the Pitt men’s basketball team this season. No, it’s not the team’s on-again/off-again shooting. No, it’s not the team’s apparent inability to beat the best opposition. And no, it’s not the repeat losing performance in the Big East championship game.

As a matter of fact, the theme I’m referring to has nothing to do with things that happen on the court. What I’m referring to is the fact that members of the Pitt men’s basketball team have repeatedly refused to address the media throughout the season.

Okay, maybe I’m extra sensitive to this issue because I’m among the members of the local sports media who focus on covering Pitt athletics. Maybe the average person, or even the average sports fan, says, “Hey, who really cares if they talk to the media? After all, they’re only college kids: do they really need to talk to the media?”

That’s a legitimate question and, admittedly, one I’ve asked myself. Never mind the simple, media-centric answer that the members of the media have a job to do and, by refusing to talk, the players are making it difficult for those people to do their job. Never mind that. I think that the question of whether the players should have to address the media drives at a basic issue regarding all sports media:

Simply put, what’s the point?

Why does sports media exist? What is the goal, ultimately, of sports coverage? One can argue that it’s only natural for sports fans to want to learn as much and collect as much information about their favorite sports teams and, as such, sports media exists to provide that coverage and information. But I think that there is more to it with regards to college sports.

Premise: Colleges/universities have two basic functions.

1. Education/research

2. Fund-raising

And not necessarily in that order.

With that premise in mind, a cynic could extrapolate that college sports, for all of their ambitions, fall into the second category: fund-raising. Then again, perhaps it’s being pessimistic to say that only a cynic could hold that view, because I am hard-pressed to find a basic core reason for colleges to support athletic programs beyond the revenue that they produce.

Of course, revenue is a bit disingenuous, because it applies to more than just sales of tickets and merchandise. There are sponsorships, corporate collaborations, advertisement opportunities, and, last but never least in the world of college athletics, donations. And the more time I’ve spent around college athletics as a professional observer, the more apparent it has become to me that donations and cultivating donors is perhaps the highest aspiration of college administrators. Everything that’s done, on an administrative level, seems to be geared toward procuring the next large donation.

And from what I’ve seen, nowhere is this goal more prevalent than in the athletic department.

This isn’t to be disparaging, either. I understand that the purpose of increasing donations is to improve the college/university, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But for a university like Pitt, where the majority of the big-money donations probably comes from athletic supporters, the athletic department has a rather large responsibility.

Which leads us to the interaction of university athletics with the media. When you look at things from a long view, the university wants to see its sports teams portrayed favorably by the media because a positive image would seem to portend more donations. As such, athletic department officials often take many steps to maintain a positive relationship with the media in the hopes that good tidings will keep the coverage fair. In the end, this filters down to accommodating the media members as they attempt to accomplish their professional goal of covering the sports teams; part of covering the sports teams is interviewing players and coaches.

I think you can draw the conclusion here:

If the athletic department wants to project a positive image in order to maintain current donors and produce new ones, players and coaches need to be made available to the media.

There are certain stipulations, perhaps written, perhaps not, that come with being an athlete at a major university, particularly if you play a high-visibility sport like men’s basketball, and especially if you are a central figure in that high-visibility sport. One of those stipulations, like it or not, is that you act as a representative of the team and the university by dealing with the media. That’s just part of the deal.

But not for the Pitt basketball team, apparently.

Now, I’m not completely without compassion for the human condition, and I understand that there are times when an 18-22 year old might not want to speak publicly, particularly in moments of heightened distress. Take, for instance, the Pitt-Louisville game this season, when the Panthers suffered one of the worst losses of the past six years. After that game, Aaron Gray was the only player that spoke to the media, which is unacceptable considering that there was no limit to the number of players who would have been of interest following such a loss.

I get it: that loss sucked, and nobody wanted to talk about it, especially not to the media. But, as I said before, that’s just part of the deal.

Do you remember when the Pitt football team lost at Ohio University in 2005? The game was probably the worst loss that team has endured in this century, and quarterback Tyler Palko threw three interceptions, including one that was returned for the game-winning touchdown in overtime. A fierce competitor, Palko had less than no interest in talking to the media after that debacle. But he did it anyway, because he understood that it was his responsibility as a key member of the team.

And after every single game that Tyler Palko started as quarterback, he addressed the media. As a member of the media covering Pitt, I watched all of those games, and I can understand that after a lot of them Palko would have much rather gotten back on the bus and rode home in silence. But he didn’t: instead, he did his duty and spoke to the media. For all the things that bothered me about Tyler Palko (and there were a few), I respected him for always talking.

I wish I could say the same thing for Pitt’s basketball players.

Gutter: Who do you think you are? Nickelback? (part 1)

Let me set the scene:

It was Tuesday, March 13th, and the Pitt men’s basketball team was preparing to leave for its bus trip to Buffalo, where the Panthers play Wright State in the opening round of the NCAA Tournament on Thursday night. A small gathering, probably numbering somewhere around 12 or 13, of media had assembled on the loading dock outside the Petersen Events Center, waiting for the Pitt players and coaches to emerge from the building. The idea here was that the media would interview players and coaches on their way from the loading dock to the team bus.

It wasn’t the ideal setup, but it was serviceable. After all, it worked last year, when it was about 11 degrees outside. At the very least, the weather was mild on Tuesday.

So we, the media, waited. The announced time for this informal press conference was 3 P.M., but few things happen on time, particularly with this team, so we waited. No big deal: the weather was warm and there was a rather interesting air that afternoon. To elaborate: Nickelback was playing a concert at the Petersen Events Center Tuesday night, so the loading dock area not only served as parking for Pitt’s team bus, but also nearly a dozen buses for the band. There were buses everywhere, creating a virtual wall of touring coaches.

It was an interesting scene, but since the assembled media (representing three television stations, several newspapers, a radio station, and at least one website) were reporters of sports, not music, the Nickelback entourage (which truly was grand in its scale) was of only passing interest.

And we continued to wait.

Sometime after 3:30 or so, the team started to emerge. First came shooting guard Ronald Ramon. As the soft-spoken Ramon walked from the building to the bus, the media group gathered around him, and he gamely stopped and took questions. While the majority of the media was interviewing Ramon, sophomore point guard Levance Fields and several of his teammates came out of the Petersen Events Center and headed to the bus.

Here is where it got interesting.

Knowing that Fields would have more to say than the normally-reserved Ramon, one or two media members broke off and approached him for an interview. It was a slow approach, and one reporter pulled ahead of the others and got to Fields first. Standing back, I watched the reporter talk to Fields but I couldn’t hear what was said over the sound of the buses. What I do know is that only a few words were exchanged before Fields headed for the bus and the reporter came walking back with a bewildered look on his face.

“I just got big-timed,” the reporter said.

Turns out Fields didn’t want to talk that day. No particular reason. He just didn’t want to talk.

The point guard of the No. 10 Pitt men’s basketball team didn’t want to talk.

The floor general of a three seed in the NCAA Tournament didn’t want to talk.

He didn’t want to talk, so a reporter trying to do his job “got big-timed” by a sophomore in college.

Time and again this season, various members of the Pitt men’s basketball team have refused to talk to the media, whether it’s after a game or during mid-week media availabilities. And usually the players who refuse to take questions are the same ones who would have the most to talk about, such as Fields, on the brink of his first NCAA Tournament as a starting point guard, or sophomore forward Sam Young, who declared a moratorium on speaking to the media mid-season just as he was becoming a frequent topic of discussion on sports talk radio and Pitt message boards for his inconsistent play that was, at times, brilliant, but was also hampered by knee tendonitis.

And then there was Aaron Gray, the pre-season All-American, pre-season Big East Player of the Year, the team leader in scoring and rebounds, and the reason that Pitt earned a lot of early recognition, since his decision to not enter the NBA draft made Pitt a likely Final Four team.

But as he was racking up double-doubles on a nightly basis, for a time it became difficult to track down the 7’0” Gray for an interview. A premier nationally-recognized player on a premier nationally-recognized team, and he didn’t want to talk to the media. This isn’t a 2 points in 12 minutes per night player: this is the player who is widely considered to be the source of Pitt’s success this season, and he didn’t want to talk to the media. If Pitt won a game this season, it was probably because of Aaron Gray, and if they lost a game, that was probably because of him, too. But he didn’t want to talk to the media.

And for several mid-season games this year, Gray did not talk. His silence was broken when Pitt played at Villanova, as a reporter from Gray’s hometown paper got an interview. Following the Panthers’ return from that trip, Gray appeared to have lifted his blanket refusal, and he addressed the media several times throughout the remainder of the season. It can be noted, however, that he was among the Pitt players who avoided the media en route to the team bus on Tuesday.

Of course, on Wednesday, Gray and two of his teammates were at the podium in Buffalo, taking questions from the media who were present for the NCAA Tournament. Apparently when the national stage is calling, it’s not so troubling to do interviews.

I know there are other topics that should be addressed in this blog, such as what the obligations of players should be, but this is pretty long, so I’ll start a separate entry to look at some of that stuff.